From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hotzoglou v. Hotzoglou

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 27, 1995
221 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

November 27, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff slipped and fell, sustaining physical injuries, while descending an exterior staircase at the defendants' home. Contrary to the defendants' contention, issues of fact exist which preclude an award of summary judgment. There is evidence in the record that the defendants were aware that the staircase was in a dilapidated condition and that it became slippery in the rain. Moreover, the defendants acknowledged that the exterior staircase did not have a handrail, and they did not establish, as a matter of law, that their home is exempt from the applicable building ordinances that require one (see, Orlick v Granit Hotel Country Club, 30 N.Y.2d 246; Major v Waverly Ogden, 7 N.Y.2d 332; Edlitz v Village of Dobbs Ferry, 97 A.D.2d 747; Lattimore v Falcone, 35 A.D.2d 1069). Indeed, "[e]ven if the fall was precipitated by a misstep, `if a hand-rail had been furnished, the [plaintiff] might have held on to it as [s]he descended the stairs, and could have avoided falling. Therefore, the absence of the rail, if required by law, would seem to be a proximate cause of the accident'" (Lattimore v Falcone, supra, at 1069). Since summary judgment should not be awarded when, as here, there are genuine issues of material fact (see, Museums at Stony Brook v Village of Patchogue Fire Dept., 146 A.D.2d 572), the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants' motion. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hotzoglou v. Hotzoglou

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 27, 1995
221 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Hotzoglou v. Hotzoglou

Case Details

Full title:DESPINA HOTZOGLOU, Respondent, v. NICK HOTZOGLOU et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Nov 27, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
634 N.Y.S.2d 501

Citing Cases

Hyman v. Queens County Bancorp, Inc.

ee with the dissent's view that an issue of fact exists as to whether the lack of a second handrail was a…

Velez v. 955 Tenants Stockholders

ts prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by eliminating all issues of fact as to whether the…