Walker v. 127 W. 22nd Street Assoc.

• Decision Date: 19 March 2001
• Citation: 722 N.Y.S.2d 250
• Parties: (A.D. 2 Dept. 2001) Lyndon Walker, appellant, v 127 West 22nd Street Associates, respondent (and a third-party action). 2000-07484 : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 250

722 N.Y.S.2d 250 (A.D. 2 Dept. 2001)

Lyndon Walker, appellant, v 127 West 22nd Street Associates, respondent

(and a third-party action).

2000-07484

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

March 19, 2001

DeMaggio & DeMaggio, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Steven DeMaggio of counsel), for appellant.

Rebore, Thorpe & Pisarello, P.C., Farmingdale, N.Y. (Paul W. Thorpe of counsel), for respondent.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, ANITA R. FLORIO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cammer, J.), dated July 27, 2000, which, upon granting the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 made at the close of the evidence to dismiss the complaint, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was injured when he slipped and fell on a staircase in the defendant's building, which was leased to the plaintiffs employer. The staircase provided access between the first floor and the basement levels of the building. At trial, the plaintiff introduced expert testimony attempting to prove that the staircase violated Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-375, which pertains to interior stairs. However, contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that those stairs were not interior stairs as that term is defined in Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-232, and thus the Code regulations governing interior staircases did not apply (see, Union Bank & Trust Co. v Hattie Carnegie, Inc., 1 A.D.2d 199; see also, Gaston v New York City Hous. Auth., 258 A.D.2d 220; Nameny v East N.Y. Sav. Bank, 267 A.D.2d 108). The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant, an out-of-possession landlord, violated any specific statutory provision (see, Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 69 N.Y.2d 559; Kilimnik v Mirage Rest., 223 A.D.2d 530). Accordingly, the court properly dismissed the complaint at the close of the evidence.