CHESTER v. MUSEUM OF MODERN ART (2020)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered February 4, 2019, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff was injured when, after walking over a stone bridge in the outdoor garden at defendant museum, she fell when she stepped onto one of the two stairs at the end of the bridge. Plaintiff alleges that the absence of handrails proximately caused her fall. Defendant submitted evidence showing that the steps were well maintained and not defective, and that the stairs did not require handrails under applicable building codes since they were neither interior nor exterior stairs as those terms are defined (see DeRosa v. City of New York, 30 A.D.3d 323, 326, 817 N.Y.S.2d 282 [1st Dept. 2006]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the absence of handrails constituted negligence. The affidavit of her expert referred to general standards concerning design of steps and the utility of handrails. Since the expert's opinion was not supported by reference to “specific, applicable safety standards or practices,” it was insufficient to defeat the motion (Griffith v. ETH NEP, L.P., 140 A.D.3d 451, 452, 33 N.Y.S.3d 238 [1st Dept 2016]., lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 905, 45 N.Y.S.3d 372, 68 N.E.3d 101 [2016]; see Hernandez v. Callen, 134 A.D.3d 654, 21 N.Y.S.3d 621 [1st Dept. 2015]).