Ridolfi v. Williams, 49 A.D.3d 295 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
Ridolfi v. Williams, 49 A.D.3d 295 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …the construction and location of the structure. at p. 296 ⚠ not in text
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reid v. 645 LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
While plaintiff's expert found that the floor extending out on both sides of the door was just 28 ½ inches, which was less than the width of the door leaf, that is not where plaintiff fell and any such violation was not a proximate cause of the accident ( Ridolfi v Williams , 49 AD3d 295, 296 [1st Dept 2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Igbodudu-Edwards v. Board of Managers of the Parkchester North Condominium, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
In any event, even assuming such a violation, given that plaintiff was holding the right-side handrail at the time she fell, it would require pure speculation to assume that had there been an intermediate handrail, she would have been able to grasp it as she fell, avoiding her injury (see Ridolfi v Williams, 49 AD3d 295, 296 [1st Dept 2008]; Bitterman v Grotyohann, 295 AD2d 383, 384 [2d Dept 2002]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Igbodudu-Edwards v. Board of Managers of the Parkchester North Condominium, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
In any event, even assuming such a violation, given that plaintiff was holding the right-side handrail at the time she fell, it would require pure speculation to assume that had there been an intermediate handrail, she would have been able to grasp it as she fell, avoiding her injury (see Ridolfi v Williams, 49 AD3d 295, 296 [1st Dept 2008]; Bitterman v Grotyohann, 295 AD2d 383, 384 [2d Dept 2002]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." De Clef Pineiro v. American Museum of Natural History
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Even so, the First Department has recognized coefficient of friction tests to be acceptable standards to measure the slipperiness of a staircase when the expert references a "specific standard in asserting that a [minimum coefficient of friction value] is the commonly accepted value for a non-slip surface" (Sarmiento v C&E Assocs., 40 AD3d 524, 526 [1st Dept 2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Ridolfi v Williams, 49 AD3d 295,295 [1st Dept 2008]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bardales v. VAM Realty Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Moreover, since the plaintiff was carrying a pot weighing at least 35 to 40 pounds with both hands as he descended the staircase, any alleged defect in the handrail was not a proximate cause of the fall (see Plowden v Stevens Partners, LLC, 45 AD3d 659, 660-661 [2007]; Pancella v County of Suffolk, 16 AD3d 566 [2005]; Daria v Beacon Capital Co., 299 AD2d 312, 312 [2002]; see also Ridolfi v Williams, 49 AD3d 295, 296 [2008]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Daniarov v. New York City Transit Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
Plaintiff’s failure to testify as to what caused her accident is fatal to her cause of action (see Telfeyan v City of New York, 40 AD3d 372 [2007]), and such failure cannot be cured by her expert’s opinion that the subject handrails violated the Building Code, even if applicable, in the absence of any evidence connecting the alleged violations to plaintiffs fall (see Reed v Piran Realty Corp., 30 AD3d 319 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 801 [2007]; see also Ridolfi v Williams, 49 AD3d 295 [2008]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jane Ridolfi
v.
Anne Williams
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 6, 2008.
49 A.D.3d 295
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

[*296] The record evidence establishes that summary judgment was properly granted in this action where plaintiff was injured when she slipped on the bottom step of defendants’ exterior staircase during a rainstorm, and fell forward. The subject staircase was equipped with handrails on both sides and plaintiff testified that despite the wet conditions, she did not hold onto the handrail as she descended the stairs, which, according to both parties’ experts, had a coefficient of friction above the standard. Regardless of the existence of any alleged building code violation in the configuration of the handrails, such was not a proximate cause of plaintiffs fall, and to find that the presence of an alternative handrail configuration would have prevented the fall would be based on speculation (see Plowden v Stevens Partners, LLC, 45 AD3d 659 [2007]; see also Jenkins v New York City Hous. Auth., 11 AD3d 358, 359-360 [2004]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Gonzalez and Acosta, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 31539(U).]