NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
May 25, 2010
ANNY C. DIETZ, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS,
S.K.V., INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS LA HOUPPA RISTORANTE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, MADISON/64TH PROPERTIES, LLC, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered November 18, 2009, which granted defendants' respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied as moot the part of defendant Madison/64th Properties' motion that sought, in the alternative, summary judgment on its common-law and contractual indemnification claims against the S.K.V. defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
The Building Code provisions relied upon by plaintiffs do not apply to the subject staircase (see Reyes v Morton Williams Associated Supermarkets, Inc., 50 AD3d 496, 497-498 ; Gaston v New York City Hous. Auth., 258 AD2d 220, 223 ). Nor did defendants have notice of any dangerous condition that would otherwise give rise to liability on their part (see generally Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 ).
We need not address Madison's appeal from the denial of the purely alternative relief of summary judgment on its claims for indemnification.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.