RAMOS v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY

The trial court, without exception from defendant, charged the jury on the imposition of liability based on a recurring hazardous condition, such theory thus becoming the legal standard by which the sufficiency of the evidence must be judged. ( See, Harris v. Armstrong, 64 N.Y.2d 700, 702.) Given the evidence that the stairwell in which plaintiff fell was used as a "hang out" and would regularly become cluttered with debris and soiled with vomit and human waste between scheduled cleanings, the jury was entitled to conclude that plaintiff's fall was caused by a recurrent hazard routinely left unremedied by defendant ( Megally v. 440 W. 34th St. Co., 246 A.D.2d 346; O'Connor-Miele v. Barhite Holzinger, 234 A.D.2d 106, 106-107; Alvarez v. Mendik Realty Plaza, 176 A.D.2d 557, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 756; Weisenthal v. Pickman, 153 A.D.2d 849, 851).

The damages awarded, as reduced, constituted reasonable compensation in light of the severity of the fracture, and plaintiff's age, level of activity prior to the injury and unfavorable prognosis.

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Rubin and Tom, JJ.