Peters v. Veemac Elevator Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peters v. Veemac Elevator Co.

182 A.D.2d 534, 582 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6227

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

DecidedApril 21, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 182 A.D.2d 534 (Peters v. Veemac 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

Peters v. Veemac Elevator Co., 182 A.D.2d 534, 582 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6227 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered January 8, 1992, which, insofar as appealed from, granted second third-party defendant-respondent’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the second third-party complaint, and imposed costs and attorneys’ fees as against second third-party plaintiff-appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to strike the award of attorneys’ fees, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Third-party defendant Lady Lynne Lingerie is the tenant of the entire ninth floor of a 12-story building under a lease requiring defendant landlord to maintain the common areas of the building, including the elevators. Plaintiffs were injured when an elevator cable snapped causing the cab to fall several floors. Defendant and second third-party plaintiff, Veemac, the elevator company which was under contract with the other defendants to maintain and service the elevators, sought contribution from Lady Lynne on the theory that it failed to monitor the use of the elevator by its employees after allegedly becoming aware of constant overcrowding.

We agree with the IAS court that since Lady Lynne had no control over the common areas of the building, it had no duty to monitor the use of the elevators and could not have done so for the entire building, and that Veemac’s theory of contribution is therefore without merit (see, Melodee Lane Lingerie Co. v American Dist. Tel. Co., 18 NY2d 57; Siegel v Hofstra Univ., 154 AD2d 449; Lieberman v Washington Sq. Hotel Corp., 40 AD2d 647). However, in the exercise of our discretion, we vacate the award of attorneys’ fees. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered January 8, 1992, which, insofar as appealed from, granted second third-party defendant-respondent’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the second third-party complaint, and imposed costs and attorneys’ fees as against second third-party plaintiff-appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to strike the award of attorneys’ fees, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Third-party defendant Lady Lynne Lingerie is the tenant of the entire ninth floor of a 12-story building under a lease requiring defendant landlord to maintain the common areas of the building, including the elevators. Plaintiffs were injured when an elevator cable snapped causing the cab to fall several floors. Defendant and second third-party plaintiff, Veemac, the elevator company which was under contract with the other defendants to maintain and service the elevators, sought contribution from Lady Lynne on the theory that it failed to monitor the use of the elevator by its employees after allegedly becoming aware of constant overcrowding.

We agree with the IAS court that since Lady Lynne had no control over the common areas of the building, it had no duty to monitor the use of the elevators and could not have done so for the entire building, and that Veemac’s theory of contribution is therefore without merit (see, Melodee Lane Lingerie Co. v American Dist. Tel. Co., 18 NY2d 57; Siegel v Hofstra Univ., 154 AD2d 449; Lieberman v Washington Sq. Hotel Corp., 40 AD2d 647). However, in the exercise of our discretion, we vacate the award of attorneys’ fees. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 534, 582 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peters-v-veemac-elevator-co-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack