Rodriguez v. Serge Elevators Co., Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Rodriguez v. Serge Elevators Co., Inc.

787 N.E.2d 1155, 99 N.Y.2d 587, 757 N.Y.S.2d 809, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 140

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 13, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 787 N.E.2d 1155 (Rodriguez v. Serge Elevators Co., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rodriguez v. Serge Elevators Co., Inc., 787 N.E.2d 1155, 99 N.Y.2d 587, 757 N.Y.S.2d 809, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 140 (N.Y. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint denied.

Plaintiff seeks to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in her personal injury action. Because plaintiff presented evidence of each element of this doctrine (see Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219 [1986]), the Appellate Division erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiffs inability to identify in which of two service elevators she was riding is not fatal to her claim because no dispute exists that defendant exclusively maintained both elevators.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint denied.

Plaintiff seeks to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in her personal injury action. Because plaintiff presented evidence of each element of this doctrine (see Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219 [1986]), the Appellate Division erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiffs inability to identify in which of two service elevators she was riding is not fatal to her claim because no dispute exists that defendant exclusively maintained both elevators.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

787 N.E.2d 1155, 99 N.Y.2d 587, 757 N.Y.S.2d 809, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-serge-elevators-co-inc-ny-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack