Sosa v. Ideal Elevator Corp.

216 A.D.2d 128, 629 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6584
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 20, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 128 (Sosa v. Ideal 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
Sosa v. Ideal Elevator Corp., 216 A.D.2d 128, 629 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6584 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about February 14, 1994, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend their pleadings so as to include a claim for punitive damages against defendant-appellant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In an action to recover for personal injuries sustained when the elevator in which plaintiffs were riding fell several floors to the basement of a residential apartment building, allegedly because of a cut cable, the IAS Court properly granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint so as to include a claim for punitive damages against defendant-appellant elevator service company, upon the basis of deposition testimony that it was appellant’s practice to have unlicensed mechanics perform unsupervised maintenance and repairs to elevators, that a repair was made to the cables of the elevator in question approximately a month and a half before the accident, and that prior to the accident, appellant submitted inspection certificates to the City of New York that were signed by a licensed mechanic who did not perform or even supervise the inspections by the unlicensed employees. Such could be found by a jury to constitute "gross recklessness or intentional, wanton or malicious conduct aimed at the public generally” (Gravitt v Newman, 114 AD2d 1000, 1002). Nor does appellant show that the amendment would hinder it in the preparation of its case or prevent it from taking some measure in support of its position (Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, 23). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Related

Randi A.J. v. Long Island Surgi-Center
46 A.D.3d 74 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
216 A.D.2d 128, 629 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sosa-v-ideal-elevator-corp-nyappdiv-1995.