Daniels v. Otis Elevator Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Daniels v. Otis Elevator Co.

236 A.D.2d 330, 655 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1677

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 330 (Daniels v. Otis Elevator 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

Daniels v. Otis Elevator Co., 236 A.D.2d 330, 655 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1677 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered on or about June 27, 1996, which denied defendant Flynn-Hill Elevator Corporation’s motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for an examination before trial of Ronald Moore, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Since documentary evidence and the deposition testimony of one of Flynn-Hill’s employees shows that there is a likelihood that another employee of Flynn-Hill, namely Ronald Moore, will provide information that will establish whether Flynn-Hill created the condition that caused the instant accident and whether Flynn-Hill had notice of the condition, the motion court properly directed the deposition of Mr. Moore and denied summary judgment as premature (CPLR 3212 [f]; see, Zollner v City of New York, 204 AD2d 626). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered on or about June 27, 1996, which denied defendant Flynn-Hill Elevator Corporation’s motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for an examination before trial of Ronald Moore, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Since documentary evidence and the deposition testimony of one of Flynn-Hill’s employees shows that there is a likelihood that another employee of Flynn-Hill, namely Ronald Moore, will provide information that will establish whether Flynn-Hill created the condition that caused the instant accident and whether Flynn-Hill had notice of the condition, the motion court properly directed the deposition of Mr. Moore and denied summary judgment as premature (CPLR 3212 [f]; see, Zollner v City of New York, 204 AD2d 626). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 330, 655 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-otis-elevator-co-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack