Francklin v. New York Elevator Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Francklin v. New York Elevator Co.

38 A.D.3d 329, 832 N.Y.S.2d 180

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 329 (Francklin v. New York 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 329, 832 N.Y.S.2d 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francklin-v-new-york-elevator-co-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack