Summary judgment was properly denied in light of the affidavit of plaintiff's expert, which raised material issues of fact as to whether defendant created the stairway defect alleged by plaintiff to have caused his injury. The evidence submitted on the motion indicates that, although the subject building was constructed prior to the enactment of the Building Code, subsequent alterations and repairs of the building, including the reconstruction of the staircase at issue, brought the building within the Code's coverage (cf., Lester v. Waterman, 242 A.D.2d 683), and "[o]rdinarily, the opinion of a qualified expert that a plaintiff's injuries were caused by a deviation from relevant industry standard would preclude a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants" (see, Murphy v. Connor, 84 N.Y.2d 969, 972).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.