Francklin v. New York Elevator Co.

38 A.D.3d 329, 832 N.Y.S.2d 180
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 2007·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered May 18, 2006, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by an elevator malfunction, after an in camera inspection, directed defendant elevator maintenance company to disclose all of its maintenance and repair records concerning the subject elevator for the six-month period following the accident, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The subject records of postaccident repairs are discoverable (see Longo v Armor El. Co., 278 AD2d 127, 129 [2000]), subject to the proviso that they are not to be introduced at trial except upon a showing of relevance to the condition of the elevator at the time of the accident, and only if introduced in a way that does not reveal that repairs were made (see Giannelli v Montgomery Kone, Inc., 175 Misc 2d 32, 34 [1997]). Concur— Tom, J.P, Sullivan, Williams, Buckley and Malone, JJ.

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

Francklin v. New York Elevator Co., 38 A.D.3d 329, 832 N.Y.S.2d 180 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

38 A.D.3d 329 (Francklin v. New York Elevator Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jimenez v. Fifty Broad St. Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 30699(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Millan v. VeoRide, Inc.
S.D. New York, 2024
Silverman v. Brady L.L.C.
2018 NY Slip Op 3217 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Perkins v. New York City Transit Authority
2016 NY Slip Op 8456 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)