Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Barbara WITT, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
HILL ST. COMMERCIAL, LLC, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dan's Papers, Inc., Third Party Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered October 16, 2007, which granted the motions of defendant and third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Dismissal of the complaint was appropriate in this action where plaintiff Barbara Witt, while at her husband plaintiff Phillip Witt's office, which was closed for business that day, was looking for a bathroom when she opened a door marked “Employees Only,” and fell down a flight of stairs as she attempted to turn on a light. Following a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by defendant building owner and third-party defendant commercial tenant (Phillip's employer), plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether there were structural defects on the premises, or whether any act or omission by the owner or tenant proximately caused the injuries that resulted from Barbara's fall (see e.g. Kane v. Estia Greek Rest., 4 A.D.3d 189, 190-191, 772 N.Y.S.2d 59 [2004] ). Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the closed door marked “Employees Only,” in an office that was closed for business, did not constitute a trap or hazardous condition, particularly since plaintiffs failed to provide a nexus between the conditions existing in the premises and Barbara's fall.
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 10, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)