Handicap Ramp Not Defective

March 1, 2004

LVT Number: 17151

Tenant sued landlord and its contractor after tenant's child fell and was injured while walking down a pedestrian access handicap ramp located outside the building. Landlord and the contractor asked the court to dismiss the case. The court ruled against them. They appealed and won. Landlord showed that the ramp wasn't cracked or irregular, as tenant claimed. The ''crack'' was actually an expansion joint built into the pavement to prevent the ramp from cracking. And tenant didn't show how or why the joint was dangerous or defective.

Tenant sued landlord and its contractor after tenant's child fell and was injured while walking down a pedestrian access handicap ramp located outside the building. Landlord and the contractor asked the court to dismiss the case. The court ruled against them. They appealed and won. Landlord showed that the ramp wasn't cracked or irregular, as tenant claimed. The ''crack'' was actually an expansion joint built into the pavement to prevent the ramp from cracking. And tenant didn't show how or why the joint was dangerous or defective. The contractor showed that it relied upon NYCHA's specifications in constructing the ramp and properly completed the construction.

Lacy v. NYCHA: NYLJ, 2/26/04, p. 34, col. 1 (App. Div. 2 Dept.; Prudenti, PJ, Altman, Luciano, Adams, JJ)

Topics

More like this