Sui v. 37-65 LLC

• Decision Date: 18 February 2014
• Citation: 114 A.D.3d 538,981 N.Y.S.2d 14,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 01136
• Parties: QUING SUI LI, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 37–65 LLC, Defendant–Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

114 A.D.3d 538
981 N.Y.S.2d 14
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 01136

QUING SUI LI, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
37–65 LLC, Defendant–Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Feb. 18, 2014.

[981 N.Y.S.2d 15]

Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellant.

Fixler & LaGattuta, LLP, New York (Paul F. LaGattuta III of counsel), for respondent.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., ANDRIAS, DeGRASSE, CLARK, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered October 16, 2012, which, to the extent appealed as limited by the briefs, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

“A landlord is generally not liable for negligence with respect to the condition of property after the transfer of possession and control to a tenant unless the landlord is either contractually obligated to make repairs and/or maintain the premises or has a contractual right to reenter, inspect and make needed repairs at the tenant's expense and liability is based on a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision” ( Johnson v. Urena Serv. Ctr., 227 A.D.2d 325, 326, 642 N.Y.S.2d 897 [1st Dept.1996],lv. denied88 N.Y.2d 814, 651 N.Y.S.2d 16, 673 N.E.2d 1243 [1996] ). Defendant landlord does not dispute that it had a contractual right to reenter, inspect and make needed repairs at the tenant's expense.

However, the court properly found that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the spiral staircase in the tenant restaurant's premises was a significant structural or design defect that was contrary to any specific statutory safety provisions. The parties do not dispute that the spiral staircase, from which plaintiff slipped due to worn treads and grease, was the means of traversing from the interior first floor to the interior mezzanine level employee locker rooms, and hence was an access staircase. The staircase was not an “interior stair” because it did not serve as a required exit, providing a means of egress from the interior of the building to an open exterior space ( see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 27–232). Thus, plaintiff failed to demonstrate any specific statutory safety violations.

Plaintiff's expert's opinion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the staircase was a significant structural feature because he did not inspect the staircase and did not explain how it was...