Majority
—In an ac
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff alleged that the heel of her shoe caught on a step as she was descending an interior stairway in the defendants’ theater, as a result of, inter alia, inadequate lighting and crowd control, and a lack of handrails. The defendants failed to provide evidence in admissible form to demonstrate their entitlement to judgment in their favor as a matter of law. The defendants did not establish that the stairway in question provided a safe means of ingress and egress and was adequately lighted (see, Wilder v Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., 175 AD2d 534 ; see also, Quinlan v Cecchini, 41 NY2d 686 ; Miccoli v Kotz, 278 AD2d 460 ; Shirman v New York City Tr. Auth., 264 AD2d 832 , 833; Kurth v Wallkill Assocs., 132 AD2d 529 ), and that they took adequate crowd control measures (cf., Palmieri v Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, 237 AD2d 589 ). Therefore, the defendants’ motion was properly denied. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Wilder v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 175 AD2d 534 p. 399
- Miccoli v. Kotz 278 AD2d 460 p. 399
- Palmieri v. Ringling Bros. 237 AD2d 589 p. 399