Opinion
197 308520/09.
02-11-2016
Orrathai PWANGSUNTHIE, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P., et al., Defendants, Dr. Jay's, Inc., Defendant–Respondent.
Wingate, Russotti, Shapiro & Halperin, LLP, New York (Brielle C. Goldfaden of counsel), for appellant. Eustace, Cotter & Bender, White Plains (Julie C. Hellberg of counsel), for respondent.
Wingate, Russotti, Shapiro & Halperin, LLP, New York (Brielle C. Goldfaden of counsel), for appellant.
Eustace, Cotter & Bender, White Plains (Julie C. Hellberg of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about September 11, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of defendant Dr. Jay's, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff was injured when she lost her balance while descending the first of two steps leading down from the mezzanine area to the main floor of defendant Dr. Jay's store. Although plaintiff reached for a handrail to prevent her from falling, the stairs did have handrails.
The motion court properly found that the two steps between the mezzanine and ground-floor level of the store constituted “access stairs,” and not “interior stairs,” within the meaning of the 1968 Building Code (Administrative Code of City of N.Y. §§ 27–232, 27–375[f] ). Therefore, the Code's requirement that “interior stairs” have handrails has no applicability, whether or not the 1968 Building Code applied to defendant's renovation of the store (see Administrative Code § 27–232; Cusumano v. City of New York, 15 N.Y.3d 319, 324, 910 N.Y.S.2d 410, 937 N.E.2d 74 2010; Martin v. DNA Rest. Corp., 103 A.D.3d 575, 961 N.Y.S.2d 47 1st Dept.2013; Remes v. 513 W. 26th Realty, LLC, 73 A.D.3d 665, 903 N.Y.S.2d 8 1st Dept.2010 ).
Defendant demonstrated through photographs, as well as plaintiff's testimony, that the steps inside its store were without defects or debris, and were well lit. Plaintiff failed to contradict, or submit evidence to rebut the showing that the two steps did not constitute a dangerous condition on the premises (see Remes, at 666, 903 N.Y.S.2d 8; Burke v. Canyon Rd. Rest., 60 A.D.3d 558, 876 N.Y.S.2d 25 1st Dept.2009 ).