Fischer v. Crossard Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fischer v. Crossard Realty Co.

63 A.D.3d 540, 880 N.Y.S.2d 479

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

DecidedJune 18, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 540 (Fischer v. Crossard Realty 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

Fischer v. Crossard Realty Co., 63 A.D.3d 540, 880 N.Y.S.2d 479 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered December 10, 2008, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by elevator misleveling, granted defendant building owner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendant’s motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

An issue of fact as to whether defendant had notice of the claimed misleveling is raised by the elevator’s service records, as clarified by the testimony of the elevator maintenance company’s president and the affidavit of plaintiff’s expert. Defendant’s argument that plaintiffs testimony shows that she fell not because of any misleveling, but when she tried to quickly move out of the way of elevator doors that allegedly were closing prematurely and frightened her, was improperly raised for the first time in its reply papers before the motion court, and we decline to consider it (see Azzopardi v American Blower Corp., 192 AD2d 453, 454 [1993]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Buckley, McGuire, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered December 10, 2008, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by elevator misleveling, granted defendant building owner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendant’s motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

An issue of fact as to whether defendant had notice of the claimed misleveling is raised by the elevator’s service records, as clarified by the testimony of the elevator maintenance company’s president and the affidavit of plaintiff’s expert. Defendant’s argument that plaintiffs testimony shows that she fell not because of any misleveling, but when she tried to quickly move out of the way of elevator doors that allegedly were closing prematurely and frightened her, was improperly raised for the first time in its reply papers before the motion court, and we decline to consider it (see Azzopardi v American Blower Corp., 192 AD2d 453, 454 [1993]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Buckley, McGuire, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 540, 880 N.Y.S.2d 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fischer-v-crossard-realty-co-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack