Arez v. Twin Parks Northeast Houses, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arez v. Twin Parks Northeast Houses, Inc.

294 A.D.2d 266, 741 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5664

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

DecidedMay 28, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 266 (Arez v. Twin Parks Northeast Houses, Inc.) 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

Arez v. Twin Parks Northeast Houses, Inc., 294 A.D.2d 266, 741 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5664 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered December 20, 2001, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when an elevator misleveled, denied defendant-appellant elevator service company’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, with leave to renew after disclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although appellant’s general manager asserts that appellant did not begin servicing the elevator in question until almost a year after plaintiffs accident, as indicated by appellant’s service contract with defendant owner, the issue of whether appellant serviced the elevator prior to the accident cannot be determined at this juncture given plaintiffs attorney’s assertion that a representative of defendant management company told him so prior to commencement of the action. Until there has been disclosure, plaintiff is not in position to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether appellant serviced the elevator prior to the [267]*267accident (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Schachat v Bell Atl. Corp., 282 AD2d 329). We note that the management company did not submit any papers on the motion. Concur—Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Rosenberger, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered December 20, 2001, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when an elevator misleveled, denied defendant-appellant elevator service company’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, with leave to renew after disclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although appellant’s general manager asserts that appellant did not begin servicing the elevator in question until almost a year after plaintiffs accident, as indicated by appellant’s service contract with defendant owner, the issue of whether appellant serviced the elevator prior to the accident cannot be determined at this juncture given plaintiffs attorney’s assertion that a representative of defendant management company told him so prior to commencement of the action. Until there has been disclosure, plaintiff is not in position to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether appellant serviced the elevator prior to the [267]*267accident (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Schachat v Bell Atl. Corp., 282 AD2d 329). We note that the management company did not submit any papers on the motion. Concur—Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Rosenberger, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 266, 741 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arez-v-twin-parks-northeast-houses-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack