Miely-Watkins v. New Latham Hotel Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miely-Watkins v. New Latham Hotel Corp.

262 A.D.2d 239, 693 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7450

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

DecidedJune 24, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 239 (Miely-Watkins v. New Latham Hotel Corp.) 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

Miely-Watkins v. New Latham Hotel Corp., 262 A.D.2d 239, 693 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J., and a jury), entered May 13, 1998, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff fell down stairs in defendant’s hotel, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The issue of whether defendant’s hotel has “winding stairs” in violation of Multiple Dwelling Law § 52 (4) was properly submitted to the jury. The photographs in evidence do not show a spiral configuration in accordance with the common understanding of what constitutes winding stairs, the statute itself contains no definition or other guidance as to what constitutes winding stairs, and the testimony of defendant’s witnesses relied on by plaintiff as admissions was at best equivocal and certainly not probative of the statute’s meaning. Also advancing the proposition that the building does not have winding stairs in violation of the statute was the evidence that it had been issued two certificates of occupancy and had never been cited for such a violation in any of its biannual inspections by Fire and Buildings Departments. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J., and a jury), entered May 13, 1998, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff fell down stairs in defendant’s hotel, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The issue of whether defendant’s hotel has “winding stairs” in violation of Multiple Dwelling Law § 52 (4) was properly submitted to the jury. The photographs in evidence do not show a spiral configuration in accordance with the common understanding of what constitutes winding stairs, the statute itself contains no definition or other guidance as to what constitutes winding stairs, and the testimony of defendant’s witnesses relied on by plaintiff as admissions was at best equivocal and certainly not probative of the statute’s meaning. Also advancing the proposition that the building does not have winding stairs in violation of the statute was the evidence that it had been issued two certificates of occupancy and had never been cited for such a violation in any of its biannual inspections by Fire and Buildings Departments. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 239, 693 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miely-watkins-v-new-latham-hotel-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack