From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grayson v. Bryan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 18, 2006
31 A.D.3d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2005-07636.

July 18, 2006.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated June 28, 2005, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Before: Luciano, J.P., Rivera, Lifson and Covello, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the defendant's prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the absence of a handrail adjacent to the stairs upon which she fell constituted a dangerous condition that was a proximate cause of her injuries ( see Swerdlow v WSK Props. Corp., 5 AD3d 587; Dooley v Dixon, 154 AD2d 331; Eidlitz v Village of Dobbs Ferry, 97 AD2d 747). Moreover, triable issues of fact exist as to whether the house was constructed before the enactment of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-375, and the provision, therefore, was inapplicable in this case, and whether the subject stairs were "interior stairs" within the meaning of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-232 ( cf. Walker v 127 W. 22nd St. Assoc, 281 AD2d 539). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion ( see Viscusi v Fenner, 10 AD3d 361).


Summaries of

Grayson v. Bryan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 18, 2006
31 A.D.3d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Grayson v. Bryan

Case Details

Full title:MELANIE GRAYSON, Respondent, v. BRYAN W. HALL, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 18, 2006

Citations

31 A.D.3d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 5752
817 N.Y.S.2d 904

Citing Cases

Spallina v. St. Camillus Church

In this action involving a fall on an allegedly defective ramp, the defendants had the burden of establishing…

Sarmiento v. C E Assoc

In its reply papers, defendant referred to the Code provision only briefly, and did not raise any challenge…