Eitan Cooper V Multiple Defendants

Supreme Court,Queens

Facts:

54 year old male plaintiff, Eitan Cooper, claims that on June 26, 2004, at approximately 6:30 p.m., while a patron at the codefendant's bar, known as Austin's Ale House and located at 82-70 Austin Street, Kew Garden Hills, New York, he was caused to sustain injuries when he slipped and fell as he was descending a staircase from the ground floor to the basement of the premises.  The premises is owned and managed by our clients, Harlington Realty and Hanover Properties, respectively. 

Plaintiff’s position:

The plaintiff admitted to having consumed three beers and two shots of Cognac within a period of two and a half hours immediately prior to his fall.  A toxicolgist who we consulted advised that he could not testify that the plaintiff's ability was impaired based on the foregoing (there was no blood alcohol testing done).

The plaintiff alleged that he slipped on a wet condition on the third step from the top of the carpeted staircase.  He also claims that when he started to descend the staircase he was unable to grab and hold onto the handrail.The plaintiff retained an architect, Denise Bakaert, R.A., A.I.A. who conducted an inspection of the subject staircase on July 26, 2004, only one month after this incident (and well before the case was placed into suit).  She testified that the handrail was installed too close to the wall, (3/4 of an inch between the handrail and the wall), in violation of the New York City Building Code (1 1/2 inch clearance required) and ANSI standards.  The plaintiff claimed that this is a statutory violation which is the responsibility of the property owner. 

Client's Position:

On our motion in limine, we argued that the architect should be precluded from testifying that the installation of the handrail was in violation of the Building Code, as the Building Code section she relied upon in her report pertained to an "interior staircase" which by definition is a stair within a building that serves as a required exit. Instead, we argued that the subject staircase was an "access stair", which is a stair between two floors, which does not serve as a required exit.  Since the plaintiff's expert relied upon the wrong section of the Building Code, and as the access stair did not set forth a specific requirement concerning the distance between the wall and the handrail, Judge Ritholtz precluded the architect from testifying that the subject handrail violated the Building Code.

Critical Issues:

Plaintiff's sustained fractures of his skull, orbits of both eyes and nose.  Plaintiff's demand was $2 million.  With no offer.  This demand was reduced to $150,000 after the first day but no offer was ever made. 

Result:

The jury returned a verdict in favor of our client and the tenant.