Lievano v. Browning School

265 A.D.2d 233, 696 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10646
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 21, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 233 (Lievano v. Browning School) 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
Lievano v. Browning School, 265 A.D.2d 233, 696 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10646 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered February 24, 1999, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a fall on a staircase in defendant-appellant’s premises, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact as to whether plaintiffs fall was proximately caused by defectively designed staircase handrails is raised by plaintiffs statement that when she felt she was about to fall she tried to hold onto something but found nothing (compare, Lynn v Lynn, 216 AD2d 194), and the unchallenged statement of her civil engineer that the low positioning of the handrails on the staircase was a significant and dangerous departure from accepted standards. This is particularly so absent proof from defendant that the staircase was ever in conformity with any preexisting standards (cf., Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Sto[234]*234larz], 81 NY2d 219, 224), particularly absent proof from defendant that the staircase was ever in conformity with any preexisting standards. Nor should the complaint be dismissed simply because particularized notice of this low-handrail theory was not given until plaintiffs attorney served his expert witness notice (cf., Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 327), which, we note, was some three months before defendant made the instant motion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ. [As amended by unpublished order entered Jan. 25, 2000.]

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

Related

Scott v. Lyceum Theatre Corp.
2023 NY Slip Op 02472 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Murray v. Villa Barone Ristorante, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 1783 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Gold v. 35 East Associates LLC
136 A.D.3d 453 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Viscusi v. Fenner
10 A.D.3d 361 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Cruz v. Lormet Housing Development Fund Corp.
7 A.D.3d 660 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Lopez v. 1372 Shakespeare Avenue Housing Development Fund Corp.
299 A.D.2d 230 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
265 A.D.2d 233, 696 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lievano-v-browning-school-nyappdiv-1999.