LIEVANO v. THE BROWNING SCHOOL

An issue of fact as to whether plaintiff's fall was proximately caused by defectively designed staircase handrails is raised by plaintiff's statement that when she felt she was about to fall she tried to hold onto something but found nothing (compare, Lynn v. Lynn, 216 A.D.2d 194), and the unchallenged statement of her civil engineer that the low positioning of the handrails on the staircase was a significant and dangerous departure from accepted standards. This is particularly so absent proof from defendant that the staircase was ever in conformity with any preexisting standards (cf., Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Stolarz], 81 N.Y.2d 219, 224) particularly absent proof from defendant that the staircase was ever in conformity with any preexisting standards. Nor should the complaint be dismissed simply because particularized notice of this low-handrail theory was not given until plaintiff's attorney served his expert witness notice (cf., Alverez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 327), which, we note, was some three months before defendant made the instant motion. [As amended by unpublished order entered Jan. 25, 2000.]

SULLIVAN, J.P., NARDELLI, TOM, MAZZARELLI, FRIEDMAN, JJ.