You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL, A VIOLATION...
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL, A VIOLATION OF THE BUILDING CODE, WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL IN A STAIRWAY, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the absence of a handrail on a stairway, a violation of the Building Code, was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s slip and fall. Therefore defendants motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

… [P]laintiff argued … that the absence of a second handrail proximately caused her injuries. She submitted the affidavit of an engineering expert, who averred that the condition of the staircase violated various provisions of the 1984 New York State Fire Prevention and Building Code (hereinafter the Building Code). The plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact regarding the absence of a second handrail. There is no dispute that the staircase required a second handrail (see 9 NYCRR former 765.4[a][11]). Given the plaintiff’s deposition testimony that there was nothing to grasp when she reached for the partial wall to her left, coupled with conflicting evidence as to whether the partial wall complied with section 765.4(a)(11) of the Building Code, triable issues of fact exist as to whether the Building Code was violated and whether a violation of that section of the Building Code, if any, was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . Rakovsky v Rob-Lee Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 07471, Second Dept 11-7-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL, A VIOLATION OF THE BUILDING CODE, WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL IN A STAIRWAY, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL, A VIOLATION OF THE BUILDING CODE, WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL IN A STAIRWAY, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STAIRWAYS (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL, A VIOLATION OF THE BUILDING CODE, WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL IN A STAIRWAY, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/HANDRAILS (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL, A VIOLATION OF THE BUILDING CODE, WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL IN A STAIRWAY, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/HANDRAILS (STAIRWAYS, SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL, A VIOLATION OF THE BUILDING CODE, WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL IN A STAIRWAY, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL, A VIOLATION OF THE BUILDING CODE, WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL IN A STAIRWAY, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER, WHO ALLEGEDLY MADE A TURN IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST, SAW WHAT WAS THERE TO BE SEEN (SECOND DEPT). ​
Requirements of Adverse Possession by “Tacking” Explained (Not Met Here)
INHERITED PROPERTY WHICH HAD BEEN COMMINGLED WITH MARITAL PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS MARITAL PROPERTY AND DIVIDED EQUALLY (SECOND DEPT).
Bank Did Not Demonstrate It Had Possession of the Note Prior to Commencing Foreclosure Action—Bank Did Not Have Standing to Bring the Action
DEFENDANTS WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY BY PARTICIPATING IN THE LITIGATION FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS AND EIGHT MONTHS WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST RAN INTO THE BACK OF DEFENDANT’S STOPPED OR STOPPING CAR; DEFENDANT DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN A MED MAL ACTION, AN EXPERT’S AFFIRMATION WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD WILL BE DEEMED “CONCLUSORY” AND WILL NOT SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
With the Exception of Residence Addresses Included in the Requested Documents, Respondent Fire Department Did Not Meet Its Burden of Demonstrating the Applicability of a Statutory Exemption to Disclosure

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

CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LIQUID ON THE FLOOR IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE NOT DEMONSTRATED... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION...