Loading
Hospitality
8 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Human Factors, Ergonomics, Building Code, Guardrail, Premises Liability
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
New York State
Court:
A fall inside a Hilton hotel in Rye, New York, led to a negligence lawsuit concerning stairway design, guardrail height, and the duty to maintain reasonably safe premises. At approximately 3:15 a.m. on May 6, 2012, Andrew Sussman lost his balance while descending from the third-floor landing, reached for the handrail, and went over the railing beside an open stairwell. He fell to the first-floor landing and later brought claims against hotel owner MK LCP Rye LLC and hotel operator Hilton Management LLC. Sussman alleged that the railing was too low to protect guests from falling into the open area beside the stairs.
In Sussman v. MK LCP Rye LLC, 164 A.D.3d 1139, 82 N.Y.S.3d 405 (1st Dep’t 2018), the parties offered different measurements and technical opinions about a railing that stood approximately 30⅜ to 32 inches high. Sussman relied on civil engineering and human-factors evidence, including an analysis of NFPA 101 and a 42-Inch Guardrail Standard. The defendants maintained that the stairway complied with the building provisions they considered applicable and did not contain a structural defect. The New York County Supreme Court denied their motion for summary judgment, and the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed that decision on September 20, 2018.
At approximately 3:15 a.m., Andrew Sussman lost his balance while descending from the third-floor landing of a Hilton hotel in Rye, New York. He reached toward the handrail, came into contact with the railing along the open side of the staircase, and went over it before falling to the first-floor landing. Sussman had been staying at the hotel with Christina Schmiedel in connection with wedding events held at the Coveleigh Country Club. He later alleged that the railing was too low to provide adequate protection against a fall into the stairwell opening.
Brad P. Avrit, a civil engineer retained by Sussman, inspected the hotel stairway on June 2 and 3, 2014. He measured portions of the handrail beside the open stairwell at approximately 30⅜ to 30½ inches and reported that no separate guard protected the exposed edge. William J. Vigilante Jr., a human-factors and ergonomics expert for Sussman, also inspected the stairway in June 2014. His evaluation addressed the relationship between the railing height, an adult user’s center of gravity, and the risk of toppling over the open side after losing balance.
Sussman testified on January 6, 2016, that he lost his balance after stepping onto the first or second stair and immediately tried to grasp the handrail. He recalled that his side struck the inner railing before he fell through the opening. Schmiedel testified on April 26, 2016, that she saw Sussman’s thigh against the railing and that his legs were the last part of his body to pass over it. Although neither witness identified the exact cause of the initial loss of balance, their testimony described Sussman’s contact with the railing and the sequence of the fall.
MK LCP Rye LLC and Hilton Management LLC moved for summary judgment under CPLR 3212, arguing that the stairway complied with applicable building requirements, contained no structural defect, and was safe for its intended use. The defendants relied on an affidavit from Scott E. Derector, P.E., who measured the handrail at approximately 32 inches and concluded that it was properly constructed and compliant with the requirements he considered applicable. Sussman opposed the motion with affidavits from Avrit and Vigilante addressing the lower railing measurements, the absence of an adequate guard, and the risk of falling over the open edge. The New York County Supreme Court denied the motion because factual disputes remained concerning the railing’s condition, causation, and whether the defendants had constructive notice of the alleged hazard.
The defendants moved for reargument and challenged Sussman’s reliance on a 42-inch guardrail standard. The court reviewed Avrit’s discussion of NFPA 101 and generally accepted standards identified as applicable near the time of the hotel’s 1971 construction. Those standards called for guards at least 42 inches high beside certain open stair edges. The court granted reargument in part to consider whether Schmidt v. One New York Plaza Co. required a different result. After reviewing that issue, the court adhered to its earlier decision denying summary judgment.
The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the July 2017 order denying the defendants’ motion. It concluded that the 42-inch provision had not been established as a mandatory building-code requirement, but the standard could still be considered as evidence supporting Sussman’s common-law negligence claim. The court also found that compliance with the code provisions cited by the defendants did not resolve whether the stairwell was reasonably safe. Questions remained concerning constructive notice and whether the railing contributed to the fall after Sussman lost his balance. The separate appeal from the February 2018 reargument order was dismissed as academic. The decision allowed the negligence claims to continue but did not determine liability, damages, or the final outcome of the lawsuit.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department
Case Name:
Sussman v. MK LCP Rye LLC
Building Code Compliance
Construction Building Codes
Construction Engineering
Fall Protection
Guards
Hotel Operation
Safety
Stair Accidents
A fall inside a Hilton hotel in Rye, New York, led to a negligence lawsuit concerning stairway design, guardrail height, and the duty to maintain reasonably safe premises. At approximately 3:15 a.m. on May 6, 2012, Andrew Sussman lost his balance while descending from the third-floor landing, reached for the handrail, and went over the railing beside an open stairwell. He fell to the first-floor landing and later brought claims against hotel owner MK LCP Rye LLC and hotel operator Hilton Management LLC. Sussman alleged that the railing was too low to protect guests from falling into the open area beside the stairs.
In Sussman v. MK LCP Rye LLC, 164 A.D.3d 1139, 82 N.Y.S.3d 405 (1st Dep’t 2018), the parties offered different measurements and technical opinions about a railing that stood approximately 30⅜ to 32 inches high. Sussman relied on civil engineering and human-factors evidence, including an analysis of NFPA 101 and a 42-Inch Guardrail Standard. The defendants maintained that the stairway complied with the building provisions they considered applicable and did not contain a structural defect. The New York County Supreme Court denied their motion for summary judgment, and the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed that decision on September 20, 2018.
At approximately 3:15 a.m., Andrew Sussman lost his balance while descending from the third-floor landing of a Hilton hotel in Rye, New York. He reached toward the handrail, came into contact with the railing along the open side of the staircase, and went over it before falling to the first-floor landing. Sussman had been staying at the hotel with Christina Schmiedel in connection with wedding events held at the Coveleigh Country Club. He later alleged that the railing was too low to provide adequate protection against a fall into the stairwell opening.
Brad P. Avrit, a civil engineer retained by Sussman, inspected the hotel stairway on June 2 and 3, 2014. He measured portions of the handrail beside the open stairwell at approximately 30⅜ to 30½ inches and reported that no separate guard protected the exposed edge. William J. Vigilante Jr., a human-factors and ergonomics expert for Sussman, also inspected the stairway in June 2014. His evaluation addressed the relationship between the railing height, an adult user’s center of gravity, and the risk of toppling over the open side after losing balance.
Sussman testified on January 6, 2016, that he lost his balance after stepping onto the first or second stair and immediately tried to grasp the handrail. He recalled that his side struck the inner railing before he fell through the opening. Schmiedel testified on April 26, 2016, that she saw Sussman’s thigh against the railing and that his legs were the last part of his body to pass over it. Although neither witness identified the exact cause of the initial loss of balance, their testimony described Sussman’s contact with the railing and the sequence of the fall.
MK LCP Rye LLC and Hilton Management LLC moved for summary judgment under CPLR 3212, arguing that the stairway complied with applicable building requirements, contained no structural defect, and was safe for its intended use. The defendants relied on an affidavit from Scott E. Derector, P.E., who measured the handrail at approximately 32 inches and concluded that it was properly constructed and compliant with the requirements he considered applicable. Sussman opposed the motion with affidavits from Avrit and Vigilante addressing the lower railing measurements, the absence of an adequate guard, and the risk of falling over the open edge. The New York County Supreme Court denied the motion because factual disputes remained concerning the railing’s condition, causation, and whether the defendants had constructive notice of the alleged hazard.
The defendants moved for reargument and challenged Sussman’s reliance on a 42-inch guardrail standard. The court reviewed Avrit’s discussion of NFPA 101 and generally accepted standards identified as applicable near the time of the hotel’s 1971 construction. Those standards called for guards at least 42 inches high beside certain open stair edges. The court granted reargument in part to consider whether Schmidt v. One New York Plaza Co. required a different result. After reviewing that issue, the court adhered to its earlier decision denying summary judgment.
The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the July 2017 order denying the defendants’ motion. It concluded that the 42-inch provision had not been established as a mandatory building-code requirement, but the standard could still be considered as evidence supporting Sussman’s common-law negligence claim. The court also found that compliance with the code provisions cited by the defendants did not resolve whether the stairwell was reasonably safe. Questions remained concerning constructive notice and whether the railing contributed to the fall after Sussman lost his balance. The separate appeal from the February 2018 reargument order was dismissed as academic. The decision allowed the negligence claims to continue but did not determine liability, damages, or the final outcome of the lawsuit.
1. Construction Engineering and Building Code Expert Witness (Defense)
Scott E. Derector, P.E., submitted an expert affidavit for MK LCP Rye LLC and Hilton Management LLC. He measured the handrail at approximately 32 inches above the stair treads and concluded that it was properly constructed, safe for its intended use, and compliant with the codes and standards he considered applicable.
2. Civil Engineering and Premises Safety Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Brad P. Avrit submitted an expert affidavit after inspecting the hotel stairway. He measured portions of the handrail beside the open stairwell at approximately 30⅜ to 30½ inches and concluded that the lack of an adequate 42-inch guardrail created a fall hazard. His analysis relied on NFPA 101 and generally accepted standards identified as applicable when the hotel was constructed.
3. Human Factors and Ergonomics Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
William J. Vigilante Jr. submitted an expert affidavit after inspecting the hotel stairway. He evaluated the relationship between the railing height and an adult user’s center of gravity. His opinion addressed whether the low railing was sufficient to prevent an average adult from toppling over it and falling through the open side of the stairwell.
4. Construction Building Codes Expert Witness
A construction building codes expert may be engaged in hotel stairway litigation to evaluate the codes, standards, and construction practices associated with handrails, guards, open stair edges, and building alterations. This expert may assess which requirements applied when the property was constructed or renovated and whether the stairway condition complied with those requirements.
1. NFPA 101 and the 42-Inch Stairway Guard Standard
NFPA 101 included a minimum height of 42 inches for guards beside certain open stair edges. The First Department did not classify that provision as a mandatory building-code requirement established in the litigation. It permitted the standard to be considered as evidence when evaluating whether the railing created an unsafe condition.
2. Building Code Compliance in a New York Premises-Liability Claim
Compliance with identified building provisions does not automatically defeat a common-law negligence claim. The hotel defendants relied on evidence that the stairway satisfied the requirements they believed applied to the property. The court still found a factual dispute over whether the railing provided reasonable protection beside the open stairwell.
3. The Difference Between a Handrail and a Guardrail
A handrail provides a surface that a person can grasp while walking up or down a stairway. A guardrail creates a barrier intended to prevent someone from falling over an exposed edge. Sussman alleged that the hotel railing may have served as a handrail but did not provide enough height to function as an adequate guard.
4. Constructive Notice of a Longstanding Stairway Condition
Constructive notice can arise when a visible condition remains on a property long enough for an owner or operator to discover it. The hotel railing had reportedly remained substantially unchanged since the building was constructed around 1971. The courts left open whether MK LCP Rye LLC and Hilton Management LLC should have identified and corrected the alleged hazard during that period.
5. Proximate Cause When the Initial Loss of Balance Is Unclear
Sussman could not identify the exact reason he first lost his balance. His claim focused instead on whether the railing contributed to the later fall through the open stairwell. The First Department determined that uncertainty about the initial event did not require dismissal because two or more conditions can contribute to the same injury.
The lawsuit continued after both the Supreme Court, New York County, and the First Department declined to dismiss Sussman’s negligence claims. The courts found that factual disputes remained over the railing measurements, the use of the 42-inch guard standard, the defendants’ notice of the stairway condition, and the connection between the railing and the fall. The September 20, 2018 appellate decision affirmed only the denial of summary judgment and did not decide whether MK LCP Rye LLC or Hilton Management LLC was liable, determine the amount of any damages, or provide the final resolution of Sussman’s claims.
What Happened in the Sussman Hotel Stairwell Accident?
Andrew Sussman lost his balance while descending from the third-floor landing of a Hilton hotel in Rye, New York. He came into contact with the railing, went over it, and fell through the open stairwell to the first-floor landing.
How High Was the Railing in the Hilton Hotel Stairwell?
The defense engineer measured the railing at approximately 32 inches. Sussman’s civil engineer measured portions of it at approximately 30⅜ to 30½ inches.
Why Was NFPA 101 Discussed in the Lawsuit?
Sussman’s engineer relied on NFPA 101 and related standards calling for a 42-inch guard beside certain open stair edges. The courts allowed the standard to support the negligence claim even though it had not been established as a mandatory code provision.
Why Did the Courts Deny the Defendants’ Summary-Judgment Motion?
The parties submitted conflicting evidence about the railing’s height, safety, and contribution to the accident. Questions also remained about constructive notice and whether the hotel owner and operator maintained reasonably safe premises.
Did Andrew Sussman Win the Appeal?
Sussman prevailed on the summary-judgment issue because the First Department affirmed the refusal to dismiss his claims. The appellate decision did not determine whether the hotel owner or operator was liable and did not award damages.
1. Construction Engineering and Building Code Expert Witness (Defense)
Scott E. Derector, P.E., submitted an expert affidavit for MK LCP Rye LLC and Hilton Management LLC. He measured the handrail at approximately 32 inches above the stair treads and concluded that it was properly constructed, safe for its intended use, and compliant with the codes and standards he considered applicable.
2. Civil Engineering and Premises Safety Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Brad P. Avrit submitted an expert affidavit after inspecting the hotel stairway. He measured portions of the handrail beside the open stairwell at approximately 30⅜ to 30½ inches and concluded that the lack of an adequate 42-inch guardrail created a fall hazard. His analysis relied on NFPA 101 and generally accepted standards identified as applicable when the hotel was constructed.
3. Human Factors and Ergonomics Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
William J. Vigilante Jr. submitted an expert affidavit after inspecting the hotel stairway. He evaluated the relationship between the railing height and an adult user’s center of gravity. His opinion addressed whether the low railing was sufficient to prevent an average adult from toppling over it and falling through the open side of the stairwell.
4. Construction Building Codes Expert Witness
A construction building codes expert may be engaged in hotel stairway litigation to evaluate the codes, standards, and construction practices associated with handrails, guards, open stair edges, and building alterations. This expert may assess which requirements applied when the property was constructed or renovated and whether the stairway condition complied with those requirements.
1. NFPA 101 and the 42-Inch Stairway Guard Standard
NFPA 101 included a minimum height of 42 inches for guards beside certain open stair edges. The First Department did not classify that provision as a mandatory building-code requirement established in the litigation. It permitted the standard to be considered as evidence when evaluating whether the railing created an unsafe condition.
2. Building Code Compliance in a New York Premises-Liability Claim
Compliance with identified building provisions does not automatically defeat a common-law negligence claim. The hotel defendants relied on evidence that the stairway satisfied the requirements they believed applied to the property. The court still found a factual dispute over whether the railing provided reasonable protection beside the open stairwell.
3. The Difference Between a Handrail and a Guardrail
A handrail provides a surface that a person can grasp while walking up or down a stairway. A guardrail creates a barrier intended to prevent someone from falling over an exposed edge. Sussman alleged that the hotel railing may have served as a handrail but did not provide enough height to function as an adequate guard.
4. Constructive Notice of a Longstanding Stairway Condition
Constructive notice can arise when a visible condition remains on a property long enough for an owner or operator to discover it. The hotel railing had reportedly remained substantially unchanged since the building was constructed around 1971. The courts left open whether MK LCP Rye LLC and Hilton Management LLC should have identified and corrected the alleged hazard during that period.
5. Proximate Cause When the Initial Loss of Balance Is Unclear
Sussman could not identify the exact reason he first lost his balance. His claim focused instead on whether the railing contributed to the later fall through the open stairwell. The First Department determined that uncertainty about the initial event did not require dismissal because two or more conditions can contribute to the same injury.
The lawsuit continued after both the Supreme Court, New York County, and the First Department declined to dismiss Sussman’s negligence claims. The courts found that factual disputes remained over the railing measurements, the use of the 42-inch guard standard, the defendants’ notice of the stairway condition, and the connection between the railing and the fall. The September 20, 2018 appellate decision affirmed only the denial of summary judgment and did not decide whether MK LCP Rye LLC or Hilton Management LLC was liable, determine the amount of any damages, or provide the final resolution of Sussman’s claims.
What Happened in the Sussman Hotel Stairwell Accident?
Andrew Sussman lost his balance while descending from the third-floor landing of a Hilton hotel in Rye, New York. He came into contact with the railing, went over it, and fell through the open stairwell to the first-floor landing.
How High Was the Railing in the Hilton Hotel Stairwell?
The defense engineer measured the railing at approximately 32 inches. Sussman’s civil engineer measured portions of it at approximately 30⅜ to 30½ inches.
Why Was NFPA 101 Discussed in the Lawsuit?
Sussman’s engineer relied on NFPA 101 and related standards calling for a 42-inch guard beside certain open stair edges. The courts allowed the standard to support the negligence claim even though it had not been established as a mandatory code provision.
Why Did the Courts Deny the Defendants’ Summary-Judgment Motion?
The parties submitted conflicting evidence about the railing’s height, safety, and contribution to the accident. Questions also remained about constructive notice and whether the hotel owner and operator maintained reasonably safe premises.
Did Andrew Sussman Win the Appeal?
Sussman prevailed on the summary-judgment issue because the First Department affirmed the refusal to dismiss his claims. The appellate decision did not determine whether the hotel owner or operator was liable and did not award damages.
Building Code Compliance
Construction Building Codes
Construction Engineering
Fall Protection
Guards
Hotel Operation
Safety
Stair Accidents
Hospitality
Hospitality, +4
Hospitality