| Barbul v Matsia Props., Corp. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00194 [47 AD3d 459] |
| January 15, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Ruza Barbul et al., Appellants, v Matsia Properties, Corp.,Respondent. |
—[*1] London Fischer LLP, New York City (Michael J. Carro of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne E. Targum, J.), entered March 15, 2005,upon a jury verdict in defendant's favor, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The trial court properly precluded plaintiffs' expert from referring to the New York CityBuilding Code (Administrative Code of City of NY tit 27), since there was no proof of the yearthe subject building and ramp were constructed and thus no foundation for the applicability ofdifferent versions of the Code and its individual provisions (Ross v Manhattan ChelseaAssoc., 194 AD2d 332, 333 [1993]). In any event, the expert testified concerning hisexamination of the ramp and opined that its slope was "excessive" by "industry standards." Thatopinion, coupled with the court's missing witness charge following defendant's failure to call itsown engineer, rendered harmless any error in the preclusion of reference to the Building Code.
Moreover, the weight of the evidence supports the jury's verdict. The injured plaintiff, whohad traveled up and down the ramp countless times, testified that she slipped and lost her balancebecause of the sandals she was wearing, and her husband testified that he threw those sandals outbecause they brought his wife bad luck. Plaintiffs had never complained about the slope of theramp to their son-in-law, the superintendent of the building, and continued to use the ramp afterthe accident when visiting their daughter. The son-in-law testified that he used the ramp "at leasta hundred times a day," that it was not dangerously steep, and that it was obvious to him thatplaintiff slipped because of her shoes.[*2]
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions andfind them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Buckley, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.