IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, STEPS WHICH DO NOT HAVE UNIFORM RISER HEIGHTS COULD CONSTITUTE A DANGEROUS CONDITION UNDER COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE PRINCIPLES, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO WHETHER A BUILDING CODE WAS VIOLATED; BOTH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE SUBLESSEE COULD BE LIABLE (FIRST DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined the steps which did not have uniform riser heights could constitute a dangerous condition for which the property owner and the sublessee could be liable:
Here, the record demonstrates that the riser heights of the steps were not uniform and that the top riser was approximately three inches taller than the bottom riser. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as the nonmoving party … , we find that both the defendant owner and the defendant car service [the sublessee] failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that a dangerous condition did not exist on the steps or that the disparity in riser heights was not a proximate cause of the accident … . Amparo v Christopher One Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 01286, 3-13-24
Practice Point: Steps which do not have uniform riser heights can constitute a dangerous condition which is the proximate cause of a slip and fall under common law negligence principles, irrespective of whether the non-uniform riser heights violated a building code.