eNotes: New York – Liability – May 2025

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

NEW YORK CASE SUMMARY

Welch v. Father’s House of Rochester, N.Y.
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1730

Decided: March 21, 2025

Summary judgment denied for Defendant in premises liability action involving bleachers of a church.

Background

In this action to recover damages for injuries Plaintiff sustained when she fell while descending stairs inside Defendant’s church, Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the stairs did not constitute a dangerous condition. Defendant submitted the report of Plaintiff’s expert who opined that the stairs were inherently dangerous and were not in compliance with applicable building codes for permanent stairways. Defendant also submitted the Affidavit of its expert, who opined that the codes cited by Plaintiff’s expert were inapplicable and that the stairs were in compliance with codes applicable to bleacher stairs.

Holding

The Court found that Defendant failed to meet its initial burden on the Motion. Although Defendant contends that the stairs did not constitute a dangerous condition, the determination of such an issue “depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury.” The Court found that Defendant’s own expert submission raised an issue of fact as to which section of the code is applicable to the subject stairs where Plaintiff fell. The Appellate Court affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision denying Defendant’s Motion for summary judgment, as it is a question for the jury to determine whether Defendant violated the relevant section of the code. Further, the Court opined that evidence of Defendant’s compliance with industry standards, does not establish that Defendant was not negligent. The Court also found that Defendant failed to establish that the alleged defect was not a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries as a matter of law. Although Plaintiff may have been comparatively negligent in failing to observe the step or in believing that she had reached the floor when she was still on the stairs, the Court opined that, contrary to its contention, Defendant failed to establish that Plaintiff fell solely due to her own negligence.

Questions about this case can be directed to Meagan Gabriel at (646) 298-3630 or mgabriel@tthlaw.com.