You are here: / / FIVE INCH HIGH THRESHOLD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS,...

FIVE INCH HIGH THRESHOLD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, NO EVIDENCE BUILDING BUILT IN 1924 MUST BE BROUGHT UP TO CODE OR COMPLY WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT.

The Second Department determined the plaintiff did not demonstrate the property owner’s failure to modify a five-inch high threshold in a brightly lit area created a dangerous condition. The building was constructed in 1924 and there was no showing the owner was required to bring the building up to code or to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court noted that the standards promulgated by the American Society for Testing and Materials were not  mandatory and could not be the basis for liability:

​

… [The owner and property manager] demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the threshold to the entrance of the premises was approximately five inches high and located in a brightly lit area, and therefore open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defect was actionable … . In his affidavit, the plaintiff’s expert architect did not dispute the fact that the premises were constructed in 1924, prior to the enactment of the building code, and cited no requirement that the premises be renovated to meet the building code enacted subsequent to its construction. Further, the Americans With Disabilities Act … standards, relied upon by the plaintiff’s expert, generally do not require renovation of buildings constructed prior to 1991 … , and the expert cited no evidence that any exceptions to that rule were applicable here. The expert’s reliance on standards promulgated by the American Society for Testing and Materials did not raise a triable issue of fact as to the liability of [the owner and property manager], since those standards are nonmandatory guidelines, a violation of which would not support a finding of liability … . Futter v Hewlett Sta. Yogurt, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 02970, 2nd Dept 4-19-17

NEGLIGENCE (FIVE INCH HIGH THRESHOLD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, NO EVIDENCE BUILDING BUILT IN 1924 MUST BE BROUGHT UP TO CODE OR COMPLY WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT)/PREMISES LIABILITY (FIVE INCH HIGH THRESHOLD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, NO EVIDENCE BUILDING BUILT IN 1924 MUST BE BROUGHT UP TO CODE OR COMPLY WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT)/SLIP AND FALL (FIVE INCH HIGH THRESHOLD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, NO EVIDENCE BUILDING BUILT IN 1924 MUST BE BROUGHT UP TO CODE OR COMPLY WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT)/AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (PREMISES LIABILITY, FIVE INCH HIGH THRESHOLD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, NO EVIDENCE BUILDING BUILT IN 1924 MUST BE BROUGHT UP TO CODE OR COMPLY WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT)/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (PREMISES LIABILITY, FIVE INCH HIGH THRESHOLD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, NO EVIDENCE BUILDING BUILT IN 1924 MUST BE BROUGHT UP TO CODE OR COMPLY WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT)

You might also like
THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE DID NOT INLUDE A LIST OF FIVE HOUSING COUNSELING AGENCIES SERVING THE COUNTY WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF ANY DEFECTS IN THE CEILING THAT FELL ON PLAINTIFFS; THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
NON-RELATIVE ALLEGED EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING A HEARING ON HER CUSTODY PETITION.
PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF PARTICIPATING IN AN OBSTACLE COURSE RACE; PLAINTIFF FELL ATTEMPTING A ‘MONSTER CLIMB’ WHICH HAD BEEN ERECTED ON A ROADWAY WITH NO MATS BENEATH (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE DECLARED A MISTRIAL AFTER THE JURY’S REPEATED COMMUNICATIONS EXPLAINING THEY COULD NOT REACH A UNANIMOUS VERDICT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS ATTEMPTING TO PUSH A HEAVY DOLLY UP A RAMP WHEN IT ROLLED BACK AND INJURED HIM (SECOND DEPT).
Attorney Whose Testimony Would Support Client Should Have Been Disqualified Under Advocate-Witness Rule, However, the Motion to Disqualify the Attorney’s Firm Was Properly Denied

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AGAINST DOCTOR WHO OVER-PRESCRIBED DRUGS TO PERSONS WHO... AUTO REPAIR SHOP OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO HAD BORROWED THE CAR WHICH HAD...