You are here: / / THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL AND DID NOT...

THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL AND DID NOT TIE THE FALL TO THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL; THERE WAS NO STATUTE OR CODE PROVISION, AND NO COMMON LAW DUTY, REQUIRING TWO HANDRAILS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not know the cause of her staircase fall. The fact that there was only one handrail, which did not violate any statute or code provision, was not tied to the fall:

… [E]ven if a plaintiff’s fall is precipitated by a misstep, where the plaintiff testifies that he or she reached out to try to stop his or her fall, the absence of a handrail, if required by law, may raise an issue of fact as to whether the absence of the handrail was a proximate cause of his or her injury” … .

… [T]he plaintiff did not know what had caused her to fall … . … [T]he building was not subject to the particular code provisions relied upon by the plaintiff … .. … [T]he plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether there was an applicable statutory or code provision that required a second handrail on the staircase. The plaintiff also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant breached her common-law duty to maintain the staircase in a reasonably safe condition by failing to install a second handrail … . Mancini v Nicoletta, 2022 NY Slip Op 04961, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff did not know the cause of her staircase fall. There was one handrail. There was no code provision or statute requiring a second handrail. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment.

 

You might also like
Trial Judge’s Violation of CPL 310.30 in Responding to Jury Note Constituted Reversible “Mode of Proceedings” Error
PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPOINTED TO SERVE AS THE INTERPRETER FOR HER MOTHER’S DEPOSITION IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; THE CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING A RELATIVE TO SERVE AS AN INTERPRETER ARE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT SHIFTED CAUSING A CONCRETE SLAB TO FALL ON HIS HAND; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; IN ADDITION A DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW IT WAS NOT AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
ALLEGATION THAT LAW FIRM ADDUCED FALSE EVIDENCE IN A PROCEEDING MUST BE ASSERTED IN A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT PROCEEDING, NOT AS A NEW ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, AN EXTERMINATOR, WAS IN THE ATTIC OF DEFENDANT’S HOUSE; THE ATTIC HAD NO FLOOR AND THE PLAINTIFF WALKED ON THE BEAMS OR JOISTS; THE PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE STEPPED ON A SMALLER PIECE OF WOOD LYING ACROSS THE BEAMS, IT GAVE WAY AND HIS LEG WENT THROUGH THE CEILING; THE 2ND DEPARTMENT, OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, DETERMINED THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE SMALLER BOARD WAS A LATENT DEFECT OR THAT DEFENDANT HAD NOTICE OF ANY DEFECT, SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF TURNED RIGHT INTO DEFENDANT DRIVER’S PATH AT AN INTERSECTION, DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM FAULT AND DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FOLIAGE OBSTRUCTING A STOP SIGN DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE ACCIDENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
RE-SERVICE AFTER EXPIRATION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PROPERLY ALLOWED.
THE COMMISSIONER’S FAILURE TO REVIEW THE HEARING OFFICER’S DETAILED DECISION BEFORE TERMINATING THE PETITIONER’S EMPLOYMENT RENDERED THE COMMISSIONER’S DETERMINATION “UNAVOIDABLY ARBITRARY” (THIRD DEPT). ​

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

THE INSPECTION PIT, WHICH DID NOT VIOLATE ANY STATUTE OR REGULATION, WAS OPEN... AN AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION REQUIRING...