Vachon v. State
| Decision Date | 08 June 2001 |
| Citation | 286 AD2d 528,729 N.Y.S.2d 212 |
| Parties | (A.D. 3 Dept. 2001) MARIRITA VACHON, Appellant, v STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent. 89148 Calendar Date: |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Nora Constance Marino, Great Neck, for appellant.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Patrick Barnett-Mulligan of counsel), Albany, for respondent.
Before: Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello and Rose, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Collins, J.), entered May 24, 2000, upon a decision of the court following a bifurcated trial on the issue of liability which granted the State's posttrial motion to dismiss the claim.
On April 7, 1997, claimant tripped and fell down a stairway while exiting the State Capitol from the south portico heading west on State Street in the City of Albany. Claimant commenced this action alleging that the State negligently allowed the existence of a hazardous and dangerous condition on the landing of the portico leading to the stairway because it was comprised of rectangular granite slabs, set in place between 1870 and 1875, which had a height differential ranging from 1 to 1½ inches which caused her to trip. Claimant further alleged that the State was negligent by its placement of only a single handrail on the stairway.
At trial, claimant testified that she entered and exited the Capitol by the western end of the portico on State Street. Upon entrance, she observed and used the sole handrail present. Approaching that stairway upon her exit, she testified that she was looking straight ahead as she tripped on the landing of the portico, causing her to reach for a handrail on the left side of the stairway as she was descending. Finding none, she fell to the ground. She testified that she did not know exactly what caused her to fall at such time and explained that to Stephen McDonough, a member of the Capitol Police, who responded to the emergency call. McDonough testified that claimant never told him that she tripped, only that she lost her balance. He further testified that he had worked at the Capitol for 10 years and was not aware of any other accident occurring on that stairway.
Claimant's expert, Stanley Fein, a civil engineer, testified that because the stairs are 73 inches wide and have only one handrail, this condition violates both the State Building Code (see, 9 NYCRR 600 et seq.) (hereinafter the Building Code) and "good and accepted practice". He also opined that the granite slabs on the portico were slightly elevated as compared to the adjacent slabs thereby creating a tripping hazard when considered in relation to the stairway; he did not offer a measurement of this alleged difference in elevation. He further opined that the accident "probably" would not have occurred if claimant had a second handrail available.
Building Superintendent Kevin O'Connor testified that he checked the maintenance records and State Police reports and found no history of prior accidents or complaints at this location. He iterated that the sole handrail on the stairway was added sometime after March 1995 at a price of approximately $200 and that at such time the assessed value of the Capitol exceeded one billion dollars.
The State's expert witness, Alvin Bryski, also a civil engineer, testified that he examined the scene of the accident and measured not only the width of the stairway but also the height differential of the subject granite slabs. His determination yielded a stairway measurement of 72 inches and a height differential of the slabs ranging from three sixteenths of an inch to one eighth of an inch. Although Bryski admitted that new construction would have required the installation of two handrails on this stairway, the lack of the second handrail did not violate "good and accepting engineering practices" or the Building Code since the construction of the stairway predated the enactment of the Building Code and the renovations thereto were minimal. He further opined that the additional handrail would not have prevented plaintiff's fall.
At the close of claimant's proof, the State moved for a directed verdict which was renewed at the close of evidence. It later filed a motion to dismiss which was granted by the Court of Claims after trial. This appeal ensued.
While we are empowered "to independently weigh the relative probative force of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony presented" (Sullivan v State of New York, 276 A.D.2d 989, 990; see, Yoss v State of New York, 241 A.D.2d 794, 795; Cordts v State of New York, 125 A.D.2d 746, 749), we will give deference to the findings made by the Court of Claims regarding the dimensions of both the stairway and the height differential of the granite slabs since they are based upon the court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility, expert or otherwise (see, Sullivan v State of New York, supra, at 990). In our review, however, we heed the Court of Appeals' guidance that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial