Ardolaj v. Two Broadway Land Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ardolaj v. Two Broadway Land Co.

276 A.D.2d 264, 714 N.Y.S.2d 12, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9859

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 3, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 276 A.D.2d 264 (Ardolaj v. Two Broadway Land Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ardolaj v. Two Broadway Land Co., 276 A.D.2d 264, 714 N.Y.S.2d 12, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered March 6, 2000, which, in an action by plaintiff cleaning person for personal injuries sustained in a fall allegedly caused when an elevator in defendant-appellant’s building misleveled, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, and granted the motion of third-party defendant-respondent, plaintiff’s employer, for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

At this juncture, it cannot be said that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur will not be available to plaintiff at trial, given the evidence that the elevator in question misleveled by up to six inches, that defendant was exclusively responsible for mainte[265]*265nance of the elevator, that plaintiff did not in any way cause the elevator to mislevel, and a question of fact as to whether plaintiffs injury was caused by the alleged misleveling (see, Dickman v Stewart Tenants Corp., 221 AD2d 158, citing Burgess v Otis El. Co., 114 AD2d 784, 785-787, affd 69 NY2d 623). Application of the doctrine raises an inference of negligence, supported by plaintiffs affidavit stating that the elevator had previously misleveled numerous times during the six months preceding the incident, that was not overcome by defendant’s evidence that the elevator was regularly inspected and maintained. The same affidavit also raises an issue of fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice of a defect that caused the elevator to mislevel (see, id., citing Rogers v Dorchester Assocs., 32 NY2d 553, 559-562). The third-party complaint was properly dismissed in the absence of any evidence that third-party defendant was in any way responsible for the elevator’s maintenance, or aware of any problems concerning the elevator’s operation. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Ellerin, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered March 6, 2000, which, in an action by plaintiff cleaning person for personal injuries sustained in a fall allegedly caused when an elevator in defendant-appellant’s building misleveled, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, and granted the motion of third-party defendant-respondent, plaintiff’s employer, for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

At this juncture, it cannot be said that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur will not be available to plaintiff at trial, given the evidence that the elevator in question misleveled by up to six inches, that defendant was exclusively responsible for mainte[265]*265nance of the elevator, that plaintiff did not in any way cause the elevator to mislevel, and a question of fact as to whether plaintiffs injury was caused by the alleged misleveling (see, Dickman v Stewart Tenants Corp., 221 AD2d 158, citing Burgess v Otis El. Co., 114 AD2d 784, 785-787, affd 69 NY2d 623). Application of the doctrine raises an inference of negligence, supported by plaintiffs affidavit stating that the elevator had previously misleveled numerous times during the six months preceding the incident, that was not overcome by defendant’s evidence that the elevator was regularly inspected and maintained. The same affidavit also raises an issue of fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice of a defect that caused the elevator to mislevel (see, id., citing Rogers v Dorchester Assocs., 32 NY2d 553, 559-562). The third-party complaint was properly dismissed in the absence of any evidence that third-party defendant was in any way responsible for the elevator’s maintenance, or aware of any problems concerning the elevator’s operation. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Ellerin, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 264, 714 N.Y.S.2d 12, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ardolaj-v-two-broadway-land-co-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack