Pwangsunthie v. Marco Realty Associates, L.P.

136 A.D.3d 502, 26 N.Y.S.3d 9
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 11, 2016
Docket197 308520/09
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 502 (Pwangsunthie v. Marco Realty Associates, L.P.) 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
Pwangsunthie v. Marco Realty Associates, L.P., 136 A.D.3d 502, 26 N.Y.S.3d 9 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about September 11, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of defendant Dr. Jay’s, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured when she lost her balance while descending the first of two steps leading down from the mezzanine area to the main floor of defendant Dr. Jay’s store. Although plaintiff reached for a handrail to prevent her from falling, the stairs did not have handrails.

The motion court properly found that the two steps between the mezzanine and ground-floor level of the store constituted “access stairs,” and not “interior stairs,” within the meaning of the 1968 Building Code of City of New York (Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 27-232, 27-375 [f]). Therefore, the Code’s requirement that “interior stairs” have handrails has no applicability, whether or not the 1968 Building Code applied to defendant’s renovation of the store (see Administrative Code § 27-232; Cusumano v City of New York, 15 NY3d 319, 324 [2010]; Martin v DNA Rest. Corp., 103 AD3d 575 [1st Dept 2013]; Remes v 513 W. 26th Realty, LLC, 73 AD3d 665 [1st Dept 2010]).

Defendant demonstrated through photographs, as well as plaintiff’s testimony, that the steps inside its store were without defects or debris, and were well lit. Plaintiff failed to *503 contradict, or submit evidence to rebut the showing that the two steps did not constitute a dangerous condition on the premises (see Remes at 666; Burke v Canyon Rd. Rest., 60 AD3d 558 [1st Dept 2009]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Related

Porto v. Golden Seahorse LLC
2019 NY Slip Op 8496 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Rakovsky v. Rob-Lee Corp.
2018 NY Slip Op 7471 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Haibi v. 790 Riverside Drive Owners, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 8102 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Verderese v. 3225 Realty Corp.
2017 NY Slip Op 1446 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 A.D.3d 502, 26 N.Y.S.3d 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pwangsunthie-v-marco-realty-associates-lp-nyappdiv-2016.