Gaston v. NYCHA

• Decision Date: 09 September 1999
• Citation: 695 N.Y.S.2d 83,258 A.D.2d 220
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: GERALDINE GASTON, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellant.

258 A.D.2d 220

695 N.Y.S.2d 83

GERALDINE GASTON, Respondent,

v.NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellant.

FRIEDMAN, J.

September 9, 1999.

Brian J. Isaac of counsel, New York City (Jeffrey S. Kimmel and Julie T. Mark on the brief; Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, and Salenger & Sack, attorneys), for respondent.

Herbert Rubin of counsel, New York City (David B. Hamm and Linda M. Brown on the brief; Herzfeld & Rubin, P. C., attorneys), for appellant.

ELLERIN, P.J., TOM and WALLACH, JJ., concur.

OPINION OF THE COURT

FRIEDMAN, J.

The issue presented by this appeal is whether a staircase located outside of a building is, for purposes of the Administrative Code of the City of New York (Code), treated as an interior staircase. While the applicable Code provisions present a complex web, careful scrutiny reveals that they do not require the staircase in issue to comply with the provisions governing interior staircases.

On January 17, 1994, plaintiff slipped and fell on ice while ascending the outside staircase of the Martin Luther King Towers at 21 West 112th Street in Manhattan. The staircase, as reflected in several photographs, consists of three steps leading from a path to a platform. The platform begins as a fourth step of the staircase, and ends at a door which leads into the building. At one side of the staircase is a handrail while the other side of the staircase is framed by a fence. The building was owned and operated by defendant New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), and plaintiff commenced this action against it.

Various theories to justify a recovery were asserted by plaintiff, but the only one to survive to trial and be submitted to the jury was her claim that defendant was negligent in failing to provide an intermediate handrail for the staircase on which she fell. According to plaintiff, although these steps were outside of the building, they were nevertheless required to comply with the requirements of the Code regarding interior staircases, which under certain circumstances, require a center handrail.

Plaintiffs claim is dependent upon the juxtaposition of sections 27-232, 27-375 (f) (1) and 27-376 of the Code. Section 27-232 of the Code defines the pertinent terms. That section defines an interior stair as "[a] stair within a building, that serves as a required exit." An exit, in turn, is defined as "[a] means of egress from the interior of a building to an open exterior space which is provided by * * * interior stairs [or] exterior stairs." Finally, exterior stair is defined as "[a] stair open to the outdoor air, that serves as a required exit."

With this definitional backdrop, we turn to the Code provisions that are at the heart of plaintiff's claim. Section 27-375 (f) (1) discusses interior stairs and requires that, when an interior staircase is more than 88 inches wide, it must have an intermediate handrail dividing the stairway. Section 27-376 provides that "[e]xterior stairs may be used as exits in lieu of interior stairs" provided they comply, inter alia, with all of the requirements for interior stairs except that such stairs need not be enclosed.

It is uncontroverted that this case does not involve a section 27-375 interior staircase. It is for that reason that plaintiff points to section 27-376. She maintains that the staircase on which she fell is a section 27-376 staircase, that is, an exterior staircase being used as an exit in lieu of interior stairs. As already indicated, the Code requires such stairs to comply with all the requirements for interior stairs and hence, from plaintiff's perspective, the staircase needed the intermediate handrail called for by section 27-375.

At the trial of this action, plaintiff, in seeking to establish this point, called Howard Edelson, a self-employed safety consultant. He testified over objection that the stairway on which plaintiff fell was an "exterior stairway." Thereafter, in the course of the court's charge on this issue the jury was told that, "A substantial factor in causing this incident, contends plaintiff, was the defendant landlord's failure to comply with the * * * Code in that the main entrance stairway was in excess of 88 inches wide and did not have an intermediate center handrail * * * Now, plaintiff claims that the failure of the defendant * * * to provide an intermediate handrail in the middle of what she alleges was an exterior stairway was the cause of plaintiff's accident. Defendant denies that the area in which plaintiff fell was an exterior stairway."

Supreme Court then continued by telling the jury that their first order of business would be to determine whether the area where plaintiff fell was an exterior stairway. In fact, the first two interrogatories presented to the jury were "[i]s the area where plaintiff fell an exterior stairway" and "[w]as the exterior stairway more than 88 inches wide, thereby requiring an intermediate handrail."

The jury answered these questions affirmatively, returning a verdict in favor of plaintiff. In our view, Supreme Court erred in asking the jury to decide whether the staircase at bar was one defined by the Code as exterior.^[1]

Initially, it is true that there are circumstances where stairs outside of the four walls of a building may serve the function of interior stairs. Thus, as previously noted, section 27-376 of the Code explicitly provides that "[e]xterior stairs may be used as exits in lieu of interior stairs provided they comply with all of the requirements for interior stairs". However, where exterior stairs are used in lieu of interior stairs they must comply with certain additional requirements. Examination of these additional requirements provides insight into the precise type of staircase contemplated by the Code.

Significantly, where exterior stairs are to be used in lieu of interior stairs they must have a roof (§ 27-376 [c]). They must not exceed 75 feet or six stories in height (§ 27-376 [b]). In a building "four stories or fifty feet in height or more, there shall be no openings in the building walls adjoining" the stairs unless such openings are protected by self-closing fire-rated doors (§ 27-376 [d]). The stairs must further comply with section 27-369 (f) (see, § 27-376 [c]), which provides that such stairs "be protected along their outer side by guards or parapets at least three feet six inches high").

When these requirements are considered together, a common example of the type of staircase contemplated by the Code becomes readily apparent, namely, the metal staircases that are frequently connected to, and run along, the exterior walls of many theaters and serve as emergency exits from the upper portions...