Opinion
Index No. 161341/2013 Motion Seq. No. 007
02-05-2024
MARIA G RAMOS, Plaintiff, v. GIORGIO ARMANI CORPORATION, Defendant
Unpublished Opinion
DECISION+ ORDER ON MOTION
HON. DAVID B. COHEN, Justice
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 007) 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165 were read on this motion to/for _JUDGMENT - SUMMARY.
In this premises liability action, defendant Giorgio Armani Corporation moves, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
This case arises from an incident on December 8, 2010, in which plaintiff was allegedly injured when she tripped and fell inside one of defendant's retail stores located at 717 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan (the store) (NYSCEF Doc No. 1). She commenced this action against defendant in December 2013, alleging that it was negligent in maintaining the store because it allowed structural defects to exist in the staircase connecting the ground floor to the second floor (Doc No. 1). She then amended her complaint in March 2014 and clarified that her fall was caused by a "half-wall that abutted the staircase" and protruded into a walking area, which constituted "an unreasonably dangerous trap" (Doc No. 3).
With issued joined by defendant's answer dated February 27,2015 (Doc No. 21), defendant moves for summary dismissal of the complaint (Doc No. 146), which is unopposed. In support of its motion, defendant submits, among other things, plaintiffs deposition testimony, photographs of the staircase, and affidavits from its senior regional manager and expert witness.
A. Deposition Testimony of Plaintiff (Doc No. J 50)
At her deposition, plaintiff testified that the store contained three floors: a retail store on the ground and second floors, with a restaurant situated on the third floor. On the date of her accident, she visited the store in the evening to have dinner with her daughter. Upon arrival, she took an elevator to the third floor restaurant. After dinner, she and her daughter exited the restaurant through the staircase. As she proceeded down, she noticed the sidewall running alongside the staircase all the way to its base on the ground floor. She stepped off the staircase onto the ground floor and noticed a bag on a shelf nearby. She turned to walk towards the bag, took two or three steps, and tripped over the end of the sidewall, causing her to fall to the floor.
B. Photographs of the Staircase (Doc Nos. 151-153)
When shown a photograph of the staircase and its surrounding area on the ground floor at her deposition, plaintiff confirmed that it fairly and accurately depicted the condition of the staircase on the date of her accident. She also identified the point where she tripped and the location of the shelf containing the bag.
The staircase is white, spiral-shaped, and has handrails on both sides. Each side of the staircase is connected to a thick, white sidewall that extends the entire length of the staircase and just beyond the final bottom step. At the base of the staircase on the ground floor, the end of the sidewall is angled down and comes to a point with the black stone floor of the store.
C. Affidavit of Defendant's Senior Regional Manager (Doc No. 154)
In his affidavit, a senior regional manager averred that he conducted a search of defendant's records to locate accident reports and complaints. His search revealed no accident reports or complaints prior to the date of plaintiffs accident related to the staircase between the ground and second floors, "including the decorative wall which runs alongside it." The only accident report discovered during the search was the accident report generated as a result of plaintiffs accident.
D. Affidavit of Defendant's Expert (Doc Nos. 156-161)
In his affidavit, defendant's expert offered his conclusions based on his experience as an architect licensed in this State, familiarity with standards and good practices within the architecture industry, and in-person visits to the store in 2020 and 2023. He conducted a search on the Department of Buildings website, which revealed no code violations or complaints associated with the staircase. The search also revealed various permits and plans that identified the staircase as a "convenient stair" that did not change anything regarding egress from the store.
Defendant's expert opined that the staircase where plaintiff fell constituted a "convenience stair" used for "causal internal circulation from floor to floor" within the store. Thus, the Administrative Code for the City of New York is inapplicable, because it only applies to stairs classified as interior or exterior stairs, which both involve exits.
Defendants' expert also opined that the staircase conformed to all professional architectural standards. The contrast between the black granite floor and white staircase, and the lighting incorporated into the handrail, provided multiple visual cues for a user to perceive the transition from the staircase to the floor. The sloped ends of the sidewall were "a natural extension of the sweeping curvature inherent in the unique design of the [staircase]" and did not constitute an "unanticipated or surprising protrusion onto the floor."
II. Legal Analysis and Conclusions
Before turning to the analysis, it bears mentioning that it is only necessary to consider whether defendant made a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
By failing to oppose the motion, plaintiff is unable to satisfy any shifted burden to demonstrate that triable questions of fact exist.
A. Whether the Store Contained Structural Defects
Defendant contends that it has made a prima facie showing that the store contained no structural defects, and, in any event, it had no notice of any such defect.
Here, defendant has made a prima facie showing that the staircase where plaintiff fell was an "access stair," and not an "interior stair," within the meaning of the Building Code. An access stair is "[a] stair between two floors, which does not serve as a required exit" (Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-232; see Cusumano v City of New York, 15 N.Y.3d 319, 324 [2010]). Based on the photographs, plaintiffs testimony, and the affidavit from defendant's expert, defendant demonstrated that the staircase connected the ground floor and the second floor, and did not serve as an exit, given that it was not "a means of egress from the interior of [the] building to an open exterior space" (Administrative Code § 27-232; see Verderese v 3225 Realty Corp., 147 A.D.3d 637, 637-638 [1st Dept 2017] [finding stair was access stair because it did not provide egress from interior of building]; Pwangsunthie v Marco Realty Assoc., L.P., 136 A.D.3d 502, 502 [1st Dept 2016] [finding two steps between mezzanine and ground floor level of store constituted access stairs], Iv denied 27 N.Y.3d 906 [2016]).
Therefore, defendant has demonstrated that the Administrative Code is inapplicable, and that there was no "significant structural or design defect that was contrary to any specific statutory safety provisions" (Ouing Sui Li v 37-65 LLC, 114 A.D.3d 538, 539 [1st Dept 2014] [affirming summary dismissal of complaint because Administrative Code inapplicable to spiral staircase inside restaurant]; see Pwangsunthie, 136 A.D.3d at 502 [similar]).
Defendant also established that it lacked any notice based on its lack of complaints or injuries related to the staircase and its sidewall through the affidavits of its senior regional manager and expert (see SaviovRose Flower Chinese Rest., Inc., 103 A.D.3d 575, 575-576 [1st Dept 2013]).
B. Whether the Allegedly Dangerous Condition was Open and Obvious
Defendant contends that it has made a prima facie showing that the staircase and its sidewall were open and obvious.
It is well established that "[t]here is no duty to warn of an open and obvious danger that can be seen by an observer reasonably using his or her senses" (Stadler v Lord &Taylor LLC, 165 A.D.3d 500, 500 [1st Dept 2018] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Although the question of whether an allegedly dangerous condition is open and obvious is generally a factspecific question meant for the jury, "a court may determine that a risk was open and obvious as a matter of law when the established facts compel that conclusion, and may do so on the basis of clear and undisputed evidence" (Tagle v Jakob, 97N.Y.2d 165, 169 [2001] [citation omitted]).
Here, between plaintiff s testimony acknowledging that she viewed the end of the sidewall as she proceeded down the staircase, the photographs depicting the layout of the area where the staircase connected to the ground floor, and the affidavit from defendant's expert, defendant demonstrated that the sidewall of the staircase was open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous (see Baker v Roman Catholic Church of the Holy See, 136 A.D.3d 596, 597 [1st Dept 2016] [finding staircase not open and obvious based on photographs and defendant's expert affidavit]; Franchini v American Legion Post, 107 A.D.3d 432, 432 [1st Dept 2013] [finding step was open and obvious based on "testimonial and photographic" evidence provided by defendant]).
Therefore, defendant is entitled to summary dismissal of plaintiffs complaint (see Baker, 136 A.D.3d at 597 [affirming summary dismissal of plaintiffs complaint after she failed to raise triable question of fact regarding open and obvious nature of allegedly dangerous condition]; Quing Sui Li, 114 A.D.3d at 539 [similar regarding alleged structural defects in violation of Administrative Code]).
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED that defendant Giorgio Armani Corporation's motion for summary judgment is granted and the complaint is dismissed with costs and disbursements to defendant Giorgio Armani Corporation as taxed by the Clerk upon the submission of an appropriate bill of costs; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.