Ortiz v. CEMD Elevator Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ortiz v. CEMD Elevator Corp.

123 A.D.3d 463, 998 N.Y.S.2d 176

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2014

Docket13692 304518/10

StatusPublished

This text of 123 A.D.3d 463 (Ortiz v. CEMD Elevator 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

Ortiz v. CEMD Elevator Corp., 123 A.D.3d 463, 998 N.Y.S.2d 176 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered August 21, 2013, which granted defendants 845 Third L.P and Rudin Management Co. Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants 845 Third, the building owner, and Rudin, the manager, demonstrated that they had no obligation to make repairs to the misleveled elevator. The lease between 845 Third and the nonparty tenant establishes that the owner was an out-of-possession landlord with a right to reenter the premises to make repairs. However, since the defect in the elevator was not a structural or design defect that violated a specific statutory provision, defendants cannot be held liable for plaintiff’s injuries. Whether or not defendants had notice of the defect is immaterial (see Devlin v Blaggards III Rest. Corp., 80 AD3d 497 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 713 [2011]).

Contrary to defendant City Elevator’s contention, Administra *464 tive Code of City of NY former §§ 27-127 and 27-128 (see Administrative Code § 28-301.1) were general, not specific, safety provisions (Kittay v Moskowitz, 95 AD3d 451, 452 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 859 [2013]). Multiple Dwelling Law § 78 is inapplicable because the building at issue is not a multiple dwelling but a commercial building.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered August 21, 2013, which granted defendants 845 Third L.P and Rudin Management Co. Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants 845 Third, the building owner, and Rudin, the manager, demonstrated that they had no obligation to make repairs to the misleveled elevator. The lease between 845 Third and the nonparty tenant establishes that the owner was an out-of-possession landlord with a right to reenter the premises to make repairs. However, since the defect in the elevator was not a structural or design defect that violated a specific statutory provision, defendants cannot be held liable for plaintiff’s injuries. Whether or not defendants had notice of the defect is immaterial (see Devlin v Blaggards III Rest. Corp., 80 AD3d 497 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 713 [2011]).

Contrary to defendant City Elevator’s contention, Administra *464 tive Code of City of NY former §§ 27-127 and 27-128 (see Administrative Code § 28-301.1) were general, not specific, safety provisions (Kittay v Moskowitz, 95 AD3d 451, 452 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 859 [2013]). Multiple Dwelling Law § 78 is inapplicable because the building at issue is not a multiple dwelling but a commercial building.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 463, 998 N.Y.S.2d 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-cemd-elevator-corp-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack