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.
Mary Ann Navarre, appellant, v. Marie K. Ketcham, et al., respondents.
Submitted—September 29, 2014
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated March 5, 2013, which granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff did not know what caused her to fall (see Martone v. Shields, 71 AD3d 840, 841; Lissauer v. Shaarei Halacha, Inc., 37 AD3d 427). Further, the defendants established that, in any event, the lack of a handrail was not a violation of the New York State Fire Prevention and Building Code or the Property Maintenance Code of the State of New York because the subject building was built before the enactment of the those codes (see Swerdlow v. WSK Props. Corp., 5 AD3d 587, 588; Matter of Village of Westbury v Straehle, 307 A.D.2d 931), and even if a handrail were required by law, its absence was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury (cf. Antonia v. Srour, 69 AD3d 666). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Martone v. Shields, 71 AD3d 840, 841; Reiff v Beechwood Browns Rd. Bldg. Corp., 54 AD3d 1015; Meehan v David J. Hodder & Son, Inc., 13 AD3d 593, 594; Lester v. Waterman, 242 A.D.2d 683, 684). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, MILLER and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2013–05673 (Index No. 1161 /10)
Decided: November 19, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)