Corden v. Schur Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Corden v. Schur Realty Co.

11 A.D.3d 363, 784 N.Y.S.2d 486, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12364

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 21, 2004·Published

Opinion

[364] Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on or about October 20, 2003, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motions were properly granted given no evidence that the elevator in question had ever previously or subsequently malfunctioned, and an expert’s affidavit in opposition that is pure speculation concerning the cause of the alleged malfunction (see Rodriguez v Davis Equip. Corp., 235 AD2d 222 [1997]). We have considered and rejected plaintiffs’ other claims. Concur—Tom, J.P., Williams, Friedman, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

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

[364] Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on or about October 20, 2003, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motions were properly granted given no evidence that the elevator in question had ever previously or subsequently malfunctioned, and an expert’s affidavit in opposition that is pure speculation concerning the cause of the alleged malfunction (see Rodriguez v Davis Equip. Corp., 235 AD2d 222 [1997]). We have considered and rejected plaintiffs’ other claims. Concur—Tom, J.P., Williams, Friedman, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

Corden v. Schur Realty Co., 11 A.D.3d 363, 784 N.Y.S.2d 486, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12364 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

11 A.D.3d 363 (Corden v. Schur Realty Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related