New York – eNotes: Liability – April 2025

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

New York Case Summary

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

Decided: March 21, 2025

Defendant’s Motion for summary judgment denied in premises liability action.

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.

Plaintiff Cynthia Welch, a guest/parishioner of Defendant The Father’s House of Rochester, New York, was coming down the bleachers/stairs in the auditorium of the premises when she was caused to slip and fall due to an inadequate hand railing. Plaintiff asserted boilerplate causes of action in negligence against Defendant. Plaintiff sustained injuries to her lower right leg, back, and lower right distal tibia and fibula. In her deposition, she implied that she attended services once a month for approximately one year prior to her accident. On those prior occasions, she had no problems navigating the stairs on the bleachers. The accident occurred on the bottom of the bleachers as Plaintiff was coming off the bleachers onto the floor. In support of its Motion, Defendant exchanged an Affidavit of Defendant’s expert engineer, who opined that the subject bleachers did not violate any statute or rule and did not pose any inordinate risk for Plaintiff.

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.