SEBASTIANO v. Michael C. Zwal, Defendant. (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), entered on or about January 23, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant law firm's motion for summary judgment dismissing the legal malpractice action as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the complaint dismissed.  The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The law firm established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment because its expert opined that the 1914 Building Code applied, since the plans for the construction of the staircase were approved in 1915, and the approval date was the operative date for the purposes of applying a code provision to any portion of a structure.  The 1914 Code, as opposed to the 1916 Code, did not require that interior stairs have non-slip treads.

Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to which code applied, and so we are able to decide as a matter of law that the 1914 code applied (see DeRosa v. City of New York, 30 A.D.3d 323, 326, 817 N.Y.S.2d 282 [1st Dept. 2006]).  Accordingly, since plaintiff, as required by General Municipal Law § 205–e, is unable to cite to a predicate code and/or ordinance, which did require that the stairs that plaintiff's decedent fell on have a non-slip tread, he cannot establish any causal connection between the law firm's failure to determine the station's “built” date and applicable building code, and the dismissal of the complaint in the underlying action (see Gallet, Dreyer & Berkey, LLP v. Basile, 141 A.D.3d 405, 405, 35 N.Y.S.3d 56 [1st Dept. 2016]).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.