Casiano v. Start Elevator, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Casiano v. Start Elevator, Inc.

126 A.D.3d 614, 3 N.Y.S.3d 601, 2015 NY Slip Op 02436, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2453

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2015

Docket14621N 300973/09

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.3d 614 (Casiano v. Start Elevator, 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

Casiano v. Start Elevator, Inc., 126 A.D.3d 614, 3 N.Y.S.3d 601, 2015 NY Slip Op 02436, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laura G. Douglas, J.), entered July 24, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs motion to compel defendant Start Elevator, Inc. to comply with discovery requests, and granted Start a protective order with respect to the requested discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that, in the course of his employment by third-party defendant, he injured his hand in a freight elevator maintained by defendant Start, because the elevator was not equipped with strap handles. Plaintiff seeks documents concerning the post-accident installation of strap handles in the elevator.

As Start was retained by plaintiffs employer, the lessor of the premises, pursuant to a maintenance contract denominated a “Lubrication Agreement,” there are no issues as to control or maintenance of the elevator with respect to which evidence of post-accident repairs to the elevator would be material and necessary (see Steinel v 131/93 Owners Corp., 240 AD2d 301 [1st Dept 1997]). Nor is there an issue as to the condition of the elevator and its lack of straps at the time of the accident, and no claim of design defect is asserted (see id.).

Concur— Tom, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laura G. Douglas, J.), entered July 24, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs motion to compel defendant Start Elevator, Inc. to comply with discovery requests, and granted Start a protective order with respect to the requested discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that, in the course of his employment by third-party defendant, he injured his hand in a freight elevator maintained by defendant Start, because the elevator was not equipped with strap handles. Plaintiff seeks documents concerning the post-accident installation of strap handles in the elevator.

As Start was retained by plaintiffs employer, the lessor of the premises, pursuant to a maintenance contract denominated a “Lubrication Agreement,” there are no issues as to control or maintenance of the elevator with respect to which evidence of post-accident repairs to the elevator would be material and necessary (see Steinel v 131/93 Owners Corp., 240 AD2d 301 [1st Dept 1997]). Nor is there an issue as to the condition of the elevator and its lack of straps at the time of the accident, and no claim of design defect is asserted (see id.).

Concur— Tom, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 614, 3 N.Y.S.3d 601, 2015 NY Slip Op 02436, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casiano-v-start-elevator-inc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack