Oguzahn v. Mount Sinai Hosp. & Mount Sinai Sch. of Med.
| Decision Date | 30 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 100027/2011 |
| Parties | CAVIT OGUZAHN, Plaintiff v. MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL and MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, Defendants |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Plaintiff seeks damages for personal injuries he sustained July 22, 2009, when he fell on an exterior step while exiting the medical facility maintained by defendants. He alleges that defendants were negligent in failing to keep their exterior stairs in a reasonably safe condition and that dangerous conditions on the staircase caused his fall. Plaintiff claims the staircase was defectively designed, constructed, and maintained, particularly in that defendants failed to provide adequate handrails in violation of the New York State and City Building Codes.
Defendants move for summary judgment, claiming plaintiff has failed to identify a hazardous condition that caused him to slip and fall on the exterior steps. C.P.L.R. § 3212(b). Defendants insist that, even if the lack of a handrail violated an applicable Building Code provision, there is no causal connection between that violation and plaintiff's fall, and his claim that his fall was attributable to the lack of a handrail is merelyspeculative.
To obtain summary judgment, defendants must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, through admissible evidence eliminating all material issues of fact. Id.; Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 499, 503 (2012); Smalls v. AJI Indus., Inc., 10 N.Y.3d 733, 735 (2008); JMD Holding Corp. v. Congress Fin. Corp., 4 N.Y.3d 373, 384 (2005); Giuffrida v. Citibank Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 72, 81 (2003). Only if defendants satisfy this standard, does the burden shift to plaintiff to rebut that prima facie showing, by producing evidence, in admissible form, sufficient to require a trial of material factual issues. Morales v. D & A Food Serv., 10 N.Y.3d 911, 913 (2008); Hyman v. Queens County Bancorp, Inc., 3 N.Y.3d 743, 744 (2004).
If defendants fail to meet their initial burden, the court must deny summary judgment despite any insufficiency in the opposition. JMD Holding Corp. v. Congress Fin. Corp, 4 N.Y.3d at 384; Scafe v. Schindler El. Corp., Ill A.D.3d 556, 557 (1st Dep't 2013); Romero v. Morrisania Towers Hous. Co. Ltd. Partnership, 91 A.D.3d 507, 508 (1st Dep't 2012); Chubb Natl. Ins. Co. v. Platinum Customcraft Corp., 38 A.D.3d 244, 245 (1st Dep't 2007). If upon defendants' prima facie showing, however, plaintiff fails to raise material factual issues, the court must grant defendants summary judgment. Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d at 503; Morales v. D & A Food Serv., 10 N.Y.3d at 913; Romero v.Morrisania Towers Hous. Co. Ltd. Partnership, 91 A.D.3d at 508. In evaluating the evidence for purposes of defendants' motion, the court construes the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d at 503; Cahill v. Triboroucrh Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 N.Y.3d 35, 37 (2004).
According to the sworn report by plaintiff's expert engineer of his inspection of the premises October 5, 2010, the staircase outside defendants' building measured approximately 102 inches from a handrail on one side of the staircase to the other side, without another handrail across" that entire width. Aff. of Richard P. Berkenfeld at 3-4. Plaintiff's engineer also - measured the riser heights of each of the staircase's three steps across the width of the staircase and found the height of the third riser down from the landing in front of the exit doors irregular, measuring five inches on one side of the staircase and four inches on the other side. Id. at 4.
Although the engineer relies on these measurements taken during his inspection to conclude that the area where plaintiff fell was in an unsafe condition, causing his injury, no evidence establishes that the area the engineer inspected October 5, 2010, was in the same condition as when plaintiff was injured July 22, 2009, more than a year previously. Plaintiff's wife, who observed his fall on the staircase, also accompanied the engineer during his inspection, id. at 1, but neither she nor any otherwitness establishes that the area inspected was in the same condition as on the date of plaintiff's injury. Neither plaintiff nor his wife attests that only one handrail served the staircase or where any handrail was located July 22, 2009.
The engineer points to a "Property Profile Overview for the premises . . . obtained from the website of the New York City Department of Buildings" October 27, 2010, which indicates that the most recent "alteration" as of that date was June 11, 1984. Id. at 5. Even if this evidence from an official government website is admissible, it does not indicate that the premises remained in the same condition from June 1984 or even from July 2009 to October 2010. LaSonde v. Seabrook, 89 A.D.3d 132, 137 n.8 (1st Dep't 2011); L&Q Realty Corp. v. Assessor, 71 A.D.3d 1025, 1026 (2d Dep't 2010); Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 61 A.D.3d 13, 20 (2d Dep't 2009). Under the New York City Building Code that the Department of Buildings implements, an "alteration" is an "addition, or change or modification of a building . . . that is not classified as a minor alteration." N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-232. Minor alterations are "minor changes or modifications in a building or any part thereof." N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-124. Plaintiff has not shown that removal of a handrail from the staircase outside defendants' building would have constituted a "change or modification of [the] building," N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-232, that is not a "minor" change or modification. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-124. Absent the foundation that the placement of thehandrails serving the staircase remained the same from July 22, 2009, to October 5, 2010, the court may not rely on an expert opinion based on the inspection on the later date. Santiago v. Burlington Coat Factory, 112 A.D.3d 514, 514-15 (1st Dep't 2013); Pomahac v. TrizecHahn 1065 Ave. of Ams., LLC, 65 A.D.3d 462, 466 (1st Dep't 2009); Machado v. Clinton Hous. Dev. Co., Inc., 20 A.D.3d 307 (1st Dep't 2005); Gilson v. Metropolitan Opera, 15 A.D.3d 55, 59 (1st Dep't 2005), aff'd, 5 N.Y.3d 574 (2005). See Salman v. L-Ray LLC, 93 A.D.3d 568, 569 (1st Dep't 2012}.
Plaintiff's engineer nevertheless concludes that the lack of handrails not more than 8 8 inches apart and the irregular height of the third riser down from the landing created hazardous conditions on the premises' exterior staircase. Since plaintiff testified at his deposition that he fell on the second or middle step down from the landing while descending the three steps of the staircase, before he reached the third step down from the landing, Aff. of Rita S. Menchel Ex. C. at 31, any irregularity of the third step's riser height did not contribute to his fall. Rivera v. Bilynn Realty Corp., 85 A.D.3d 518, 518 (1st Dep't 2011).
The undisputed evidence that plaintiff did not descend the steps on the right side, so as to use the handrail available there, and the absence of evidence that he attempted to find or reach for a handrail suggest that the lack of a closer handrail also did not contribute to his fall. Robinson v. 156 Broadway Assoc., LLC, 99 A.D.3d 604, 605 (1st Dep't 2012); Ridolfi v.Williams, 49 A.D.3d 295, 296 (1st Dep't 2006). Yet he testified that as he exited the building door toward the stairs other persons were ascending, who may have impeded his access to the right side of the stairs. As he descended toward the left, no handrail that he might have attempted to grab was within reach. Menschel Aff. Ex. D, at 32. Had handrails been placed not more than 88 inches apart, depending on exactly where he was descending, a handrail would have been no more than 44 inches from the center of his body, or no more than approximately three feet from his side, and thus likely within his reach. Nevertheless, even drawing these inferences in his favor, and assuming the measurements of the stairs and the placement of handrails did not change between July 22, 2009, and October 5, 2010, the conditions found by plaintiff's engineer did not violate any applicable requirement of the City or State Building Code.
The New York City Building Code requires that an interior staircase more than 88 inches wide include an intermediate handrail dividing the stairway. N.Y.C. 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. Admin. Code § 27-376; Gaston v. New York City Hous. Auth., 258 A.D. 2d at 222. See Castillo v. Akdeniz Realty,LLC, 91 A.D.3d 531, 531-32 (1st Dept 2012); DeRosa v. City of New York, 30 A.D.3d at 326. The applicability of statutory and regulatory requirements and the interpretation of what they require, here whether they required handrails on defendants' staircase, are legal questions reserved for the court's determination and not questions on which the court may consider an expert witness' opinion. Buchholz v. Trump 767 Fifth, 5 N.Y.3d 1, 7 (2005); Lopez v. Chan, 102 A.D.3d 625, 626 (1st Dep't 2013); Reyes v. Morton Williams Associated Supermarkets, Inc., 50 A.D.3d 496, 497 )(1st Dep't 2008); DeRosa v. City of New York, 30 A.D.3d at 326.
The interior stairs to which the handrail requirement applies are inside a building and serve as a required exit. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 27-232; DeRosa v. City of New York, 30 A.D.3d at 326; Maksuti v. Best Italian Pizza, 27 A.D.3d 300, 300 (1st Dep't 2006); Gaston v. New York City Hous. Auth., 258 A.D.2d at 221. Exterior stairs are "open to the outdoor air" and serve "as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial