Devoy v. 1110/1130 Stadium Owners Corp.

270 A.D.2d 131, 704 N.Y.S.2d 572, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2987
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 21, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 131 (Devoy v. 1110/1130 Stadium Owners Corp.) 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
Devoy v. 1110/1130 Stadium Owners Corp., 270 A.D.2d 131, 704 N.Y.S.2d 572, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2987 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered February 8, 1999, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained as a result of an allegedly defective elevator, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant elevator maintenance company’s motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims as against it, and denied defendant building owner’s motion for the same relief, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs invocation of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as against the elevator maintenance company was properly rejected under the present circumstances, where plaintiff himself kicked open the elevator shaftway door (see, Burgess v Otis El. Co., 114 AD2d 784, 787, affd 69 NY2d 623). The uncontradicted deposition testimony is that a plastic bag became stuck in the overspeed governor located in the elevator motor room, and that this caused the elevator to stop between floors. That the shaftway door was closed when the elevator stopped and was opened by plaintiffs voluntary action does not, as the building owner argues, constitute a supervening cause of the accident as a matter of law. Whether plaintiff’s attempt to extricate himself from the stuck elevator was a foreseeable consequence of an emergency situation created by the building owner’s alleged negligence in not properly maintaining the motor room is an issue of fact (see, Humbach v Goldstein, 255 AD2d 420). We have considered the building owner’s other contentions and find them unpersuasive. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

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

Related

Echevarria v. 158th St. Riverside Drive Housing Co.
113 A.D.3d 500 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Owens v. Stevenson Commons Associates, L.P.
64 A.D.3d 517 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Soomaroo v. Mainco Elevator & Electrical Corp.
41 A.D.3d 465 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
270 A.D.2d 131, 704 N.Y.S.2d 572, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/devoy-v-11101130-stadium-owners-corp-nyappdiv-2000.