Dolly Balleram, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 11P LLC (2016)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Dolly Balleram, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 11P, LLC, Defendant–Respondent.

1819

Decided: October 04, 2016

Friedman, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Gische, Kahn, JJ.

Krentsel & Guzman, LLP, New York (Steven E. Krentsel of counsel), for appellant. Gannon, Rosenfarb & Drossman, New York (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered August 10, 2015, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff's expert failed to identify any applicable statute or rule that requires a landowner to install a handrail or grab-bar in the bathroom of an apartment (see Lunan v. Mormile, 290 A.D.2d 249 [1st Dept 2002] ). Defendant did not breach its common-law duty of care by declining plaintiff's requests for ahandrail, since the bathtub was in good working order and not alleged to be defective or hazardous for ordinary use (Rivera v. Nelson Realty, LLC, 7 NY3d 530, 535 [2006] ).

CLERK

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network