Baer v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baer v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.

277 A.D.2d 184, 716 N.Y.S.2d 652, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12393

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 30, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 184 (Baer v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baer v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 277 A.D.2d 184, 716 N.Y.S.2d 652, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12393 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered May 31, 2000, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a trip and fall on a step leading into premises owned by and subleased to the respective defendants, denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs expert’s affidavit raises issues of fact as to whether the entrance to the premises was defectively designed, and thereby rendered unsafe, by reason of requiring persons entering the premises to negotiate an eight-inch step while simultaneously opening a large, heavy door that swung out over the step. While plaintiffs deposition testimony did not specifically state that the door caused his fall, his recitation clearly indicated that he was holding the door open when he fell, and thus the expert’s affidavit that the size and weight of the door was such as to cause difficulty in negotiating the step clearly related to plaintiffs testimony that his foot caught on the step. The action was properly sustained as against defendant owner of the premises in view of the provision in its lease with nonparty main tenant requiring the latter to obtain its permission for any alterations, and there being a question of fact as to whether defendant owner approved of alterations to the entrance that created the alleged design defect. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered May 31, 2000, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a trip and fall on a step leading into premises owned by and subleased to the respective defendants, denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs expert’s affidavit raises issues of fact as to whether the entrance to the premises was defectively designed, and thereby rendered unsafe, by reason of requiring persons entering the premises to negotiate an eight-inch step while simultaneously opening a large, heavy door that swung out over the step. While plaintiffs deposition testimony did not specifically state that the door caused his fall, his recitation clearly indicated that he was holding the door open when he fell, and thus the expert’s affidavit that the size and weight of the door was such as to cause difficulty in negotiating the step clearly related to plaintiffs testimony that his foot caught on the step. The action was properly sustained as against defendant owner of the premises in view of the provision in its lease with nonparty main tenant requiring the latter to obtain its permission for any alterations, and there being a question of fact as to whether defendant owner approved of alterations to the entrance that created the alleged design defect. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 184, 716 N.Y.S.2d 652, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baer-v-barnes-noble-inc-nyappdiv-2000.