Citation Numbers: 281 A.D.2d 398, 721 N.Y.S.2d 388, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2132
Filed Date: 3/5/2001
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
—In an ac
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff alleged that the heel of her shoe caught on a step as she was descending an interior stairway in the defendants’ theater, as a result of, inter alia, inadequate lighting and crowd control, and a lack of handrails. The defendants failed to provide evidence in admissible form to demonstrate their entitlement to judgment in their favor as a matter of law. The defendants did not establish that the stairway in question provided a safe means of ingress and egress and was adequately lighted (see, Wilder v Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., 175 AD2d 534; see also, Quinlan v Cecchini, 41 NY2d 686; Miccoli v Kotz, 278 AD2d 460; Shirman v New York City Tr. Auth., 264 AD2d 832, 833; Kurth v Wallkill Assocs., 132 AD2d 529), and that they took adequate crowd control measures (cf., Palmieri v Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, 237 AD2d 589). Therefore, the defendants’ motion was properly denied. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.