Johnson v 301 Holdings, LLC

Johnson v 301 Holdings, LLC 2011 NY Slip Op 08274 Decided on November 17, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 17, 2011
Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Catterson, Richter, Román, JJ.
6056 16727/06

[*1]Andrew Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

301 Holdings, LLC, et al., Defendants-Respondents.




Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP, New York (Florina
Altshiler of counsel), for appellant.
Gallo Vitucci & Klar LLP, New York (Kimberly A. Ricciardi
of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered August 30, 2010, which, in this action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff tripped and fell on the bottom step of an interior staircase in the lobby of defendants' building, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence showing that the stairs were not inherently dangerous and did not constitute a hidden trap. The evidence showed that the lobby and stairs were well lit; that there were no physical defects in the structure of the steps; that plaintiff was well aware of the steps since he had been a tenant in the building for several years and had traversed the lobby hundreds of times; and that no one had ever complained about the stairs (see e.g. Broodie v Gibco Enters. Ltd., 67 AD3d 418 [2009]; Burke v Canyon Rd. Rest., 60 AD3d 558 [2009]; see also Remes v 513 W. 26th Realty, LLC, 73 AD3d 665 [2010]).

Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion. His reliance on the expert's affidavit is misplaced since the sections of the New York City Building Code cited by the expert were not applicable to the stairs (see DeRosa v City of New York, 30 AD3d 323, 326 [2006]]).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions,
including that he momentarily forgot about the presence of the staircase, and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 17, 2011 [*2]

CLERK