Ndiaye v. Nep W. 119th St. L.P.
| Decision Date | 15 December 2016 |
| Citation | 145 A.D.3d 564,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08463,43 N.Y.S.3d 326 |
| Parties | Ndeye NDIAYE, Plaintiff–Respondent–Appellant, v. NEP WEST 119th STREET L.P., et al., Defendants–Appellants–Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
145 A.D.3d 564
43 N.Y.S.3d 326
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08463
Ndeye NDIAYE, Plaintiff–Respondent–Appellant,
v.
NEP WEST 119th STREET L.P., et al., Defendants–Appellants–Respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec. 15, 2016.
Carol R. Finocchio, New York (Marie R. Hodukavich of counsel), for appellants-respondents.
John O'Gara, P.C., New York (John O'Gara of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
SWEENY, J.P., RENWICK, RICHTER, MANZANET–DANIELS, KAPNICK, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered April 5, 2016, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and plaintiff's cross motion for an order concluding as a matter of law that defendants' staircase violated the 1916 Building Code requiring an interior staircase to have two handrails, unanimously modified, on the law, defendants' motion granted, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Plaintiff alleges that she lost her balance while attempting to descend interior stairs in defendants' building with a heavy shopping cart, and that the absence of a second handrail on her right side proximately caused her to fall down the steps. She alleged that the stairs were maintained in violation of the 1916 Building Code of the City of New York, which required handrails on both sides of interior stairs.
Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that there was no defective condition on the stairs (see Egan v. Emerson Assoc., LLC, 127 A.D.3d 806, 6 N.Y.S.3d 600 [2d Dept.2015] ), and that the building was constructed before 1916 and complied with the requirements of the applicable Tenement House Law, which only required one handrail on staircases like the one at issue (s...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thuku v. 324 E. 93 LLC
...classification" which would have required the building to be updated to code applicable at the time (see NYCAC §27-118[a]; Ndiaye v NEP W. 119th St. LP., supra at 565) or the existing fire-stopping was damaged during the renovations. Moreover, Plaintiffs experts failed to offer any sustaina......
-
Thuku v. 324 E. 93 LLC
...classification" which would have required the building to be updated to code applicable at the time (see NYCAC §27-118[a]; Ndiaye v NEP W. 119th St. LP., supra at 565) or the existing fire-stopping was damaged during the renovations. Moreover, Plaintiffs experts failed to offer any sustaina......
-
Viselli v. Riverbay Corp.
...985–986, 763 N.Y.S.2d 669 [2d Dept.2003], affd. 3 N.Y.3d 7, 787 N.Y.S.2d 215, 820 N.E.2d 85943 [2004]; Ndiaye v. NEP W. 119th St., L.P., 145 A.D.3d 564, 43 N.Y.S.3d 326 [1st Dept.2016] ). Plaintiffs' submissions, including an expert affidavit that afforded no basis on which to find the expe......
-
Goodnough v. Clark
...owner is under no legal duty to modify the building thereafter in the wake of changed standards."); Ndiaye v. NEP W. 119th St. L.P., 145 A.D.3d 564, 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2016) ("Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that ther......