From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hernandez v. Callen

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 29, 2015
134 A.D.3d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

16515 15916/12.

12-29-2015

Pedro HERNANDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Robinson CALLEN, etc., et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of James J. Toomey, New York (Evy L. Kazansky of counsel), for respondent.


Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellant.

Law Office of James J. Toomey, New York (Evy L. Kazansky of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered July 25, 2014, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiffs' cross motion to amend and/or supplement the bill of particulars, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint was warranted in this action where plaintiff Pedro Hernandez alleges that he was injured when he fell while ascending a two-step configuration that led from a corridor to restrooms in premises owned or operated by the various defendants. The code provisions relied upon by plaintiff do not require handrails or uniform riser heights on the stairs on which plaintiff fell, as they are not part of an “interior stair” (see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 27–232; Remes v. 513 W. 26th Realty, LLC, 73 A.D.3d 665, 903 N.Y.S.2d 8 1st Dept.2010 ). Furthermore, the assertion of plaintiffs' expert, that good and commonly accepted safe industry practice required handrails and uniform riser heights on the subject steps, is conclusory, as it was not supported by reference to specific, applicable safety standards or practices (see Jones v. City of New York, 32 A.D.3d 706, 707, 821 N.Y.S.2d 548 1st Dept.2006; Contreras v. Zabar's, 293 A.D.2d 362, 740 N.Y.S.2d 203 1st Dept.2002 ).

Plaintiffs' cross motion to amend and/or supplement the bill of particulars was properly denied since the code provisions plaintiffs sought to assert are inapplicable (see e.g. Kittay v. Moskowitz, 95 A.D.3d 451, 944 N.Y.S.2d 497 1st Dept.2012, lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 859, 2013 WL 518556 2013 ).

MAZZARELLI, J.P., SWEENY, MANZANET–DANIELS, GISCHE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hernandez v. Callen

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 29, 2015
134 A.D.3d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Hernandez v. Callen

Case Details

Full title:Pedro Hernandez, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robinson Callen, etc.…

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

Date published: Dec 29, 2015

Citations

134 A.D.3d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 9638
21 N.Y.S.3d 621

Citing Cases

Griffith v. ETH NEP, L.P.

Plaintiff's opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The two expert affidavits submitted by…

Suero v. Acad

The expert did not conduct any wet dynamic slip-resistance testing on the stairwell. He opined that the…