By Carla Varriale and Jarett L. Warner*
An Appellate Court in New York has unanimously reversed the Supreme Court, Bronx County’s denial of summary judgment to the City of New York and the New York Yankees (the “City” and the “Yankees”) and dismissed plaintiffs’ personal injury action.
In DeRosa v. City of New York (2006 NY Slip Op 5139, 2006 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 8423), the Appellate Division, First Department held that defendants the City and the Yankees met their burden of establishing that they were entitled to summary judgment and that plaintiffs failed to establish triable issues of fact from which the City and the Yankees’ negligence could reasonably be inferred. The centerpiece of the Appellate Division’s decision was the lower court’s failure to address whether the staircase at issue was subject to New York City Building Code (Administrative Code of the City of New York) requirements. Since statutory interpretation is a question of law that must be decided by a court and not a jury, the Appellate Division reasoned that the lower court’s failure to undertake the necessary analysis (and the evidence that plaintiffs relied on a multitude of inapplicable requirements) constituted reversible error.
The facts underlying the DeRosa decision are straightforward. Prior to the start of the baseball game, plaintiffs (husband and wife) went to Monument Park, a site in the left field area dedicated to honor great Yankee players of the past. While descending a metal staircase that was equipped with handrails on both sides (although the left handrail was flush against a wall), plaintiff fell on the second or third step. Although he testified that he felt his foot slide, he and his wife admitted there was no foreign substance or debris on the stairs. As plaintiff reached for the left handrail, he could not grip it because it was flush against a wall. However, plaintiff also admitted that when he fell he was carrying a promotional mug in his right, dominant hand. There were no prior complaints or accidents involving the staircase, which had been in the identical position for 14 years.
Defendants moved for summary judgment and argued, among other things, that the staircase to Monument Park was a “special purpose” staircase and was not subject to the Building Code requirements cited by plaintiffs.
The lower court denied defendants’ motion. Avoiding the questions of whether the staircase was subject to Building Code requirements and whether two handrails were required, the lower court posited that the presence of the left handrail created “an illusion of safety.” The lower court further opined that the presence of the left handrail was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall and that the position of the left handrail against a wall for 14 years (without any complaints or similar accidents) constituted constructive notice of a dangerous condition.
The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, holding that plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of “facts and conditions from which the negligence of the defendant[s] and the causation of the accident by that negligence can be causally inferred (citation omitted).” The Appellate Division noted that such proof must permit a finding of proximate cause based upon the logical inferences drawn from the evidence and not speculation.
Carla Varriale and Jarett L. Warner represented the City of New York and the New York Yankees. Ms. Varriale is a partner and Mr. Warner is an associate at Havkins Rosenfeld Ritzert & Varriale, LLP in New York, New York. They have litigated several high profile cases for professional and minor league sports teams. They also counsel risk managers, venue owners and operators, general counsels and clients with self-insured retentions to minimize liability and to develop successful litigation strategies. They can be reached at Carla.Varriale@hrrvlaw.com, Jarett.Warner@hrrvlaw.com or 212-488-1598.
