Derosa v. City of New York, 8626.

Decision Date27 June 2006
Docket Number8626.
Citation817 N.Y.S.2d 282,30 A.D.3d 323,2006 NY Slip Op 05139
PartiesJOHN DEROSA et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Plaintiff John DeRosa (DeRosa) commenced this action for injuries sustained when he fell down a stairway leading to Monument Park in Yankee Stadium. Plaintiff Denise DeRosa asserted a claim for loss of services.

At his deposition, DeRosa testified that on October 3, 2001, he went to Yankee Stadium to see a game with his wife. He had been to the stadium 8 or 10 times prior to that day.

Prior to the start of the game, DeRosa went to visit Monument Park, which is located within the stadium in the area of left field. Metal stairs with handrails on both sides lead from the field level seats to Monument Park. No other people were on the stairs and Mrs. DeRosa went down the stairs first.

DeRosa testified that as he reached the second or third step, he "thought like my foot slid on something" and he fell down the stairway, landing at the bottom. Neither he nor Mrs. DeRosa noticed any substance on the stairs. DeRosa testified he reached for the left handrail, but could not grip it because it was flush against the wall. He was carrying a mug in his right hand.

Denise DeRosa testified at her deposition that she was walking down the same stairs in front of her husband, holding onto the right handrail. He fell behind her and then his body went past her on the left side of the steps as he fell all the way to the bottom of the stairs. She did not notice any wetness, liquid or debris on the stairs.

Plaintiffs' expert, Robert Schwartzberg, submitted a report stating that the stairs in question violated building code requirements for exit stairs in a number of particulars, specifically, that the treads were not level, tread width varied more than permitted by the building code, and the left handrail was inappropriately located. He also reported that the stairway was a required exit and did not meet the building code requirements for such a stairway. The verified bill of particulars claimed, inter alia, that the stairs were excessively steep, sharply inclined, and improperly constructed and installed, thus creating a hazardous condition.

Anthony Randazzo, Director of Stadium Operations since 1998, testified at his deposition that his duties included overseeing the day-to-day operations at the stadium, including Monument Park. His search of the stadium records did not disclose any record as to when the stairs were installed or by whom. He testified there were no previous complaints about the handrails, there were no maintenance or repair records for the stairs, and he was not aware of anyone else falling on the stairs. The stairs were moved after the accident so that the handrail was no longer against the wall.

The security guard who was assigned to Monument Park during most of the 2001 baseball season testified that he recalled the incident, as it was the only time someone fell down the stairs. He stated that as DeRosa walked down the steps, he thought DeRosa's knee gave out, causing him to roll down the stairs. He further testified he did not see DeRosa grab the handrail.

Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they neither created nor had notice of any allegedly dangerous condition. In addition, an affidavit from defendants' expert, Jeffrey Ketchman, opined that the stairway was not a required exit, nor was it a required interior or exterior stair as defined by the building code. Rather, Ketchman stated the stairs were "special purpose stairs" which allow patrons access to Monument Park from the left field seating area, and thus were not subject to building code requirements. After measuring the riser from which DeRosa fell, Ketchman found it be within acceptable construction standards, and opined, improperly, that the stairs were not the cause of DeRosa's fall.

Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the stairway was indeed an exterior stair, as Monument Park was an "exterior court" within the confines of Yankee Stadium. Plaintiffs' expert repeated the findings of his prior report, stating that the variations in riser heights and stair widths created an unsafe condition, did not meet proper engineering standards and did not comply with building code requirements.

In reply, defendants argued, inter alia, that expert witness Schwartzberg never made specific reference to the top three steps, where DeRosa claimed he fell. In contrast, defendants' expert found those steps to be uniform and level, and hence could not have caused DeRosa's fall.

The IAS court denied the motion for summary dismissal, finding that even if a second...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • Bautista v. 85TH Columbus Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • November 26, 2013
    ...Code required the subject staircase to have a center handrail presented a question of law, not fact”]; DeRosa v. City of New York, 30 A.D.3d 323, 326, 817 N.Y.S.2d 282 [1st Dept. 2006] [issue of whether a stairway is an interior stairs is for the court to resolve]; Westra v. Ten's Cabaret, ......
  • Cappabianca v. Skanska U.S. Bldg. Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • May 3, 2010
    ...New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562 (1980); Mazurek v Metropolitan Museum of Art, 27 A.D.3d 227, 228 (1st Dept. 2006); DeRosa v City of New York, 30 A.D.3d 323, 325 (1st Dept. 2006). If there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue of fact, the motion for summary judgment must be denie......
  • Oguzahn v. Mount Sinai Hosp. & Mount Sinai Sch. of Med.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • April 30, 2014
    ...Admin. Code § 27-375(f)(1); Gaston v. New York City Hous. Auth., 258 A.D.2d 220, 221-22 (1st Dep't 1999). See DeRosa v. City of New York, 30 A.D.3d 323, 326 (1st Dep't 2006). This requirement also applies to exterior stairs that "may be used as exits in lieu of interior stairs." N.Y.C. Admi......
  • Kostulias v. City of New York
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • January 24, 2022
    ... ... Dept 2006], citing Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 ... N.Y.2d 557, 562 [1980]; see also, DeRosa v City of New ... York, 30 A.D.3d 323, 325 [1st Dept 2006]). If there is ... any doubt as to the existence of a triable fact, the motion ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT