Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Helena S. Martin, et al v. Dna Restaurant Corp.

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


February 26, 2013

HELENA S. MARTIN, ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
DNA RESTAURANT CORP., ETC., ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS,
NWACHUKWU C. NWOSISI, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Martin v DNA Rest. Corp.

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.

Decided on February 26, 2013

Friedman, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Roman, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert E. Torres, J.), entered March 14, 2012, which granted defendants Nwosisi, Alapo, Nnah, and The Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim and Seraphim Church of NY, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about August 2, 2012, which denied plaintiffs' motion for reargument, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a non-appealable paper.

The record demonstrates that none of the provisions of the Administrative Code of the City of New York on which plaintiffs rely as a predicate for imposing liability on defendants, who are out-of-possession landlords with a limited right of re-entry, is applicable (see Kittay v Moskowitz, 95 AD3d 451 [1st Dept 2012]; Boateng v Four Plus Corp., 22 AD3d 323 [1st Dept 2005]). Former sections 27--127 and 27--128 were general, rather than the requisite specific, safety provisions (Kittay, 22 AD3d at 452). Sections 27--375(d)(2) and (f) do not apply because the single step is not an "interior stair[]"; it does not "serve[] as a required exit," i.e., as defined in § 27--232, a required "means of egress from the interior of [the] building to an open exterior space." The step does not serve as an exit, is not a ramp, and is not near a door (see §§ 27-370[d]; 27-377[c][5]; 27-371[h]).

We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 26, 2013

CLERK

20130226

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.