Jackson v. Bethel A.M.E. Church

192 A.D.3d 868

140 N.Y.S.3d 755 (Mem)

Janet M. JACKSON, appellant,

v.BETHEL A.M.E. CHURCH, et al., respondents.

2019–10485

Index No. 30910/13

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—January 12, 2021

March 17, 2021

Jakubowski, Robertson, Maffei, Goldsmith & Tartaglia, LLP, Saint James, N.Y. (James J. Herz of counsel), for appellant.

Lovas & Naqvi, Garden City, N.Y. (Claudia P. Lovas of counsel), for respondents Bethel A.M.E. Church and African American Methodist Episcopal Church and Congregation of Bay Shore, NY.

Charles F. Harms, Jr., Garden City, N.Y. (Danielle R. Schilling of counsel), for respondent D'Alessandro & Son Contractors, Inc.

LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, HECTOR D. LASALLE, BETSY BARROS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (John H. Rouse, J.), dated July 15, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Bethel A.M.E. Church and African American Methodist Episcopal Church and Congregation of Bay Shore, NY, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint asserted against them, and that branch of the separate motion of the defendant D'Alessandro & Son Contractors, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

On the afternoon of March 31, 2013, the plaintiff was descending the exterior staircase of a church owned by the defendants Bethel A.M.E. Church and African American Methodist Episcopal Church and Congregation of Bay Shore, N.Y. (hereinafter together the Bethel defendants), when she allegedly fell and was injured. In 2012, the Bethel defendants had retained the defendant D'Alessandro & Son Contractors, Inc. (hereinafter D'Alessandro), to regrout the stairs, including the grout around one of the two existing handrails at the edges of the staircase. The plaintiff commenced separate actions against the Bethel defendants and D'Alessandro, which were then consolidated. The plaintiff asserted, inter alia, that the staircase was defective in that it did not have a handrail in the center of the staircase in violation of certain sections of the 2003 and 2007 New York State Building Code, and that this defect contributed to her fall. D'Alessandro moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims asserted against it, contending that the plaintiff did not know what had caused her to fall and that it did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care. The Bethel defendants separately moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims asserted against them, also contending that the plaintiff did not know what had caused her to fall and that the subject staircase was exempt from the sections of the 2003 and 2007 New York State Building Code identified by the plaintiff. The Supreme Court granted both motions on the ground that the plaintiff did not know what had caused her to fall. The plaintiff appeals.

A property owner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition (see Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 352 N.E.2d 868 ). In a premises liability case, a defendant real property owner can establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of her or his accident (see Miranda v. Leone Realty, Inc., 179 A.D.3d 1052, 1052–1053, 114 N.Y.S.3d 705 ; Hamoudeh v. Mandel, 62 A.D.3d 948, 949, 880 N.Y.S.2d 674 ). However, even 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 (see Palmer v. Prima Props., Inc., 101 A.D.3d 1094, 1095, 956 N.Y.S.2d 537 ; Boudreau–Grillo v. Ramirez, 74 A.D.3d 1265, 1267, 904 N.Y.S.2d 485 ; Wajdzik v. YMCA of Greater N.Y., 65 A.D.3d 586, 587, 883 N.Y.S.2d 718 ; Palmer v. 165 E. 72nd Apt. Corp, 32 A.D.3d 382, 819 N.Y.S.2d 105 ).

Here, the Bethel defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not know what had caused her to fall (see Miranda v. Leone Realty, Inc., 179 A.D.3d at 1053, 114 N.Y.S.3d 705 ; Hamoudeh v. Mandel, 62 A.D.3d at 949, 880 N.Y.S.2d 674 ), and that the subject staircase, which predated the 2003 and 2007 versions of the Building Code, was not required to be equipped with a handrail in the center (see Morrison v. Apostolic Faith Mission of Portland, Or., 111 A.D.3d 684, 974 N.Y.S.2d 568 ; Hyman v. Queens County Bancorp, Inc., 307 A.D.2d 984, 986, 763 N.Y.S.2d 669, affd 3...