Newsroom
On the evening of October 28, 2001, plaintiff accompanied his girlfriend and his girlfriend’s daughters into the dark stairway which led to their apartment. After planting his left foot on the first step, plaintiff’s right foot missed the second step. As a result, plaintiff fell forward and struck his right shoulder directly on the concrete steps, resulting in a severe fracture. Since there was no handrail, plaintiff’s attempt to grab for one was futile.
During his deposition, defendant’s superintendent admitted that there was a two-inch difference between the height of the first and second steps. However, he vehemently denied that there were any problems with the exterior lights within the apartment complex or that he received any complaints about the lack of a handrail.
Before trial, defendant asked the trial court to dismiss plaintiff’s case. Amazingly, the defendant-landlord claimed that it did not need to provide its tenants with a handrail -- or even level steps -- because its building was constructed before 1916. The trial court gave this argument short shrift where it stated, “[plaintiff’s counsel] asserts, and this Court agrees, that compliance with a nearly century old ordinance governing stairway design and construction does not, in itself, resolve the issue of whether the stairway was defective.” Based on this finding, the Court ordered the parties to proceed to trial.
Within days, the defendant-landlord took its chances with the Appellate Division, First Department. Scott B. Schwartz, Esq., who previously authored the papers that resulted in the denial of defendant’s motion, submitted a brief and appeared before the Appellate Division to argue that the original decision must stand. He was successful in this regard.
In a unanimous decision dated November 1, 2005, the Appellate Division agreed with Mr. Schwartz’s argument that compliance with an old building codes does not, in and of itself, determine whether a landlord has kept its premises in a safe condition. In this instance, the defendant could be held liable for plaintiff’s injuries even though the Tenement House Act of 1901 and the Building Code of 1916 did not require a landlord to provide handrails or risers of the same height on its steps.
See the entire opinion at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_08041.htm