Court Opinion

ID: 9802709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 14:46:41.523794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:01:42.879952
License: Public Domain

by Sweeny, J.,
as follows: Because I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that plaintiff’s allegations concerning a defective handrail may be fairly inferred from the notice of claim, I must dissent.
The amended notice of claim states the accident was: “due to the dangerous, defective, broken, hazardous, dimly lit, wet, feces-filled and unsafe condition of said landing. . . . [Defendant was also negligent] in its ownership, design, construction, operation, maintenance, management, repair and control of the premises mentioned, and more specifically the aforementioned landing. [Defendant was] further negligent in allowing, causing, creating and permitting the landing to be, become and remain in a broken, dangerous, defective, unstable, dimly lit, wet, feces-filled and unsafe condition; in causing, allowing and permitting the landing to be carelessly, negligently and dangerously *403maintained, creating a trap, nuisance and hazard upon the said premises and more particularly upon the landing and in failing to post any notice or warning of the said dangerous and defective condition at said premises and landing.” Nowhere in the amended notice of claim is there even an indication of a defective handrail being a substantial factor in the accident.
Therefore, the allegations contained in the bill of particulars regarding defective conditions of the handrail were not set forth in, and, despite the majority’s conclusion, cannot fairly be inferred from, the allegations in the notice of claim (DeJesus v New York City Hous. Auth., 46 AD3d 474, 475 [1st Dept 2007]).
Nor did plaintiff’s General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing testimony provide notice that he claimed that the handrail was defective or contributed to his accident (Scott v City of New York, 40 AD3d 408, 410 [1st Dept 2007]). The only reference to the handrail in plaintiffs testimony was that he was holding on to it and let go because of what turned out to be a lock at the end of the railing. There was never so much as an inference that the handrail was in any way defective much less a cause of the accident. The record simply does not support the majority’s conclusion concerning the allegations of a defective handrail.