This is the decision following the liability trial of the claim of Rachel James, arising from her May 7, 2009 slip and fall on a ramp on the Vesey Street Bridge over the West Side Highway in Manhattan.

Ms. James is a longtime employee of the Battery Park City Authority, whose offices are situated in the World Financial Center between the Hudson River and the West Side Highway. Claimant's hours were 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and she ordinarily used the bridge at Liberty Street to cross over to the east side of the Highway where she could access the subway that she took to and from her home. But, about once a month going back to 2003 when it was built, James would cross via the Vesey Street Bridge - - as she did this time after work, because she wanted to pick up dinner at a place closer to Vesey Street.

Claimant testified that it had rained heavily in the morning and had stopped mid-morning. After buying a salad to take home, James was outside as she approached the Vesey Street bridge. The bridge is covered by a high arcade that is open on the sides. James had a shoulder bag as well as a bag that contained her umbrella, the newspaper and the just-purchased dinner; she was wearing sneakers.

James ascended on an escalator, walked across the bridge to the east side and took the elevator down. The elevator opens to a small landing, which leads to a ramp that inclines downward and meets the sidewalk. Claimant described the slope as gradual, although the testimony of Shilpan Patel, a civil engineer with the State Department of Transportation, apparently suggested something steeper (a 30-degree slope or it "could be less"). Patel testified [*2]that because of this slope, there are handrails on both sides of the ramp (see the photo that is claimant's exhibit 4).

When the elevator doors opened, "I walked out about eight or nine steps. I walked out, I made a right turn, I walked a few steps and . . . I started to slip . . . as I started to slip my right foot, I'm sorry, my left foot went forward. I grabbed the railing . . . to try to break the fall and my left foot slipped and I fell backwards and the right leg landed sort of out, stretched . . . I was sort of landing in a seated position . . . [o]n the ramp."

The State, like any property owner, has a duty to maintain its premises in a safe condition, but that does not mean it is an insurer; if an accident occurs, negligence and causation must be shown in order to implicate liability (Clairmont v State of New York, 277 AD2d 767 [3d Dept 2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 704 [2001]). Claimant is charged with proving by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence that her fall was proximately caused by a dangerous condition, which the defendant either created or of which it had actual or constructive notice (Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976, 978 [1997]).

Claimant argues that the defendant failed to place mats or any warning cones or signs when it rained and the inclined ramp became wet and slippery. The DOT's Patel testified that he had seen plastic cones or signs warning that it was slippery when wet "where the ramp meets the sidewalk," implying that the place where he saw the warning cones was in a different area than where Ms. James fell, which was closer to the elevator. His testimony continued:

Q. Right, but what about if you were walking in the opposite direction and just, getting out of the elevator to walk towards the . . . sidewalk? Have you ever seen any cones . . . or warning signs?

A. . . . I rarely use the elevator so I don't know . . . whether there's a sign up there, up on the top of the ramp or not.

Patel went on to agree with the general statement thereon:

Q. . . . So then you would agree that those areas when they get wet are slippery and that's why you have seen in the past, cones or warnings or signs?

A. Yes.

The ramp was an open metal grate that had what Patel described as teeth; he pointed out that such would provide more resistence and the ramp was not designed to be covered with mats (see for example, the photo that is claimant's exhibit 1).

Claimant made no showing that the Vesey Street Bridge or the subject area varied from any applicable standards that relate to, among other things, the open structure of the arcade, the material and slope of the ramp, or the placement of the handrails. While there were a number of questions at trial on the amount of light, natural and otherwise, by Order of this Court, claimant was precluded from raising at trial "any issue as to the design of the placement, type and rated [*3]intensity of the lighting"^[FN1] - - and there was no showing that any existing lights were out.

James testified that she saw no water, either in puddles, tracked in, or otherwise, and agreed with the inquiry on cross-examination that it had not rained in seven or eight hours. Patel testified that because it was partially open, the bridge did not require air conditioning or climate control, and that rain or snow can come into the bridge through the arcade openings "if [there] is high wind." Nor did claimant present sufficient evidence, if any, that what was involved here was a known recurring hazardous condition as with the ceiling leaks in David v New York City Hous. Auth. (284 AD2d 169 [1st Dept 2001]); see also Santiago v JP Morgan Chase & Co. (96 AD3d 642 [1st Dept 2012]).

In any event, claimant's own testimony did not describe an actionable dangerous condition. She saw no water or puddles; rather, "it seemed damp"; and "I just felt damp a little bit."

In view of the foregoing, Rachel James has not met the burden of proving her case by a preponderance of the credible evidence, and the Chief Clerk is directed to dismiss claim no. 117209.

Let judgment be entered accordingly. ALAN C. MARIN Judge of the Court of Claims

New York, New York November 13, 2013