From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Denstman v. Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department
Dec 2, 2021
No. 2021-06753 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 2, 2021)

Opinion

2021-06753 Index 157345/18

12-02-2021

Pearl Denstman, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hospital et al., Defendants-Respondents. Appeal No. 14743 Case No. 2020-04019

Michael H. Zhu, PC, New York (Michael H. Zhu of counsel), for appellant. Barbiero, Bisch & O'Connor, LLP, Central Islip (Joseph M. O'Connor of counsel), for respondents.


Michael H. Zhu, PC, New York (Michael H. Zhu of counsel), for appellant.

Barbiero, Bisch & O'Connor, LLP, Central Islip (Joseph M. O'Connor of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Gische, J.P., Kapnick, Kern, Gesmer, Kennedy, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered February 17, 2021, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants' evidence, both testimonial and photographic, established that the final step of the staircase on which plaintiff tripped was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Hall v New Way Remodeling, Inc., 168 A.D.3d 620 [1st Dept 2019]; Franchini v American Legion Post, 107 A.D.3d 432 [1st Dept 2013]). Defendants' expert's report and affidavit also established that the stairs were in a safe condition and did not violate any applicable New York City Building Code requirements (see Porto v Golden Seahorse LLC, 177 A.D.3d 540 [1st Dept 2019]; Hernandez v Callen, 134 A.D.3d 654 [1st Dept 2015]).

Plaintiff's opposition failed to raise an issue of fact. Plaintiff's expert's opinion that the step caused optical confusion is belied by the photographs in the record, which show that the final step and the landing were of different, contrasting colors (see Hall, 168 A.D.3d at 620; Namm v Levy, 172 A.D.3d 507 [1st Dept 2019]). The expert's assertion that the lack of handrails at the last step constituted a dangerous condition was conclusory, as it was not supported by reference to any applicable safety standards or practices (see Hernandez, 134 A.D.3d at 654; see also Verderese v 3225 Realty Corp., 147 A.D.3d 637, 638 [1st Dept 2017]).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Denstman v. Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department
Dec 2, 2021
No. 2021-06753 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 2, 2021)
Case details for

Denstman v. Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp.

Case Details

Full title:Pearl Denstman, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat…

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

Date published: Dec 2, 2021

Citations

No. 2021-06753 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 2, 2021)