From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. DNA Restaurant Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 26, 2013
103 A.D.3d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-02-26

Helena S. MARTIN, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. DNA RESTAURANT CORP., etc., et al., Defendants, Nwachukwu C. Nwosisi, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

George S. Bellanttoni, White Plains, for appellants. Gannon, Rosenfarb, Balletti & Drossman, New York (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for respondents.



George S. Bellanttoni, White Plains, for appellants. Gannon, Rosenfarb, Balletti & Drossman, New York (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for respondents.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., SAXE, MOSKOWITZ, DeGRASSE, ROMÁN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert E. Torres, J.), entered March 14, 2012, which granted defendants Nwosisi, Alapo, Nnah, and The Eternal Sacred Orderof Cherubim and Seraphim Church of N.Y., Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about August 2, 2012, which denied plaintiffs' motion for reargument, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

The record demonstrates that none of the provisions of the Administrative Code of the City of New York on which plaintiffs rely as a predicate for imposing liability on defendants, who are out-of-possession landlords with a limited right of reentry, is applicable ( see Kittay v. Moskowitz, 95 A.D.3d 451, 944 N.Y.S.2d 497 [1st Dept. 2012]; Boateng v. Four Plus Corp., 22 A.D.3d 323, 802 N.Y.S.2d 418 [1st Dept. 2005] ). Former sections 27–127 and 27–128 were general, rather than the requisite specific, safety provisions ( Kittay, 95 A.D.3d at 452, 944 N.Y.S.2d 497). Sections 27–375(d)(2) and (f) do not apply because the single step is not an “interior stair[ ]”; it does not “serve [ ] as a required exit,” i.e., as defined in § 27–232, a required “means of egress from the interior of [the] building to an open exterior space.” The step does not serve as an exit, is not a ramp, and is not near a door ( see§§ 27–370[d]; 27–377[c][5]; 27–371[h] ).

We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Martin v. DNA Restaurant Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 26, 2013
103 A.D.3d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Martin v. DNA Restaurant Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Helena S. MARTIN, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. DNA RESTAURANT CORP.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 26, 2013

Citations

103 A.D.3d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
103 A.D.3d 575
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 1214

Citing Cases

Pwangsunthie v. Marco Realty Assocs., L.P.

The motion court properly found that the two steps between the mezzanine and ground-floor level of the store…