Villalba v. New York Elevator & Electrical Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Villalba v. New York Elevator & Electrical Corp.

127 A.D.3d 650, 9 N.Y.S.3d 21

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

DecidedApril 28, 2015

Docket14960 115799/06

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 650 (Villalba v. New York Elevator & Electrical 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

Villalba v. New York Elevator & Electrical Corp., 127 A.D.3d 650, 9 N.Y.S.3d 21 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Robinson Edmead, J.), entered May 1, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied that portion of defendant New York Elevator and Electrical Corporation, Inc.’s (NYE’s) motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint and cross claims against it, and granted that portion of the motion seeking summary judgment on its cross claim against defendants WSA Management Ltd. and WSA Equities, LLC (collectively, WSA) for breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Issues of fact exist as to whether prior malfunctions of the subject elevator provided notice of an unsafe condition that caused the malfunction resulting in plaintiffs injuries (see Rogers v Dorchester Assoc., 32 NY2d 553, 559 [1973]). Although NYE’s expert explained how construction dust may interfere with the operation of the elevator, he never stated the basis for his conclusion that the malfunction at issue was due to construction dust and not some other cause, and his conclusion was therefore speculative. Even if it was not speculative, the expert affidavit submitted by WSA raises issues of fact as to the cause of the elevator malfunction. We reject NYE’s assertion that plaintiffs’ claims that the elevator briefly dropped rapidly, reversed directions and ascended rapidly, multiple times, is physically impossible. Plaintiffs’ description of the event presents an issue of credibility.

The evidence conclusively establishes that NYE was the sue *651 cessor to Gemini/Empire Elevator Company with whom WSA Management contracted for maintenance of the elevator that allegedly malfunctioned. WSA further admitted in a reply to NYE’s notice to admit that, at the time of the malfunction, NYE was maintaining the elevator pursuant to the contract between Gemini/Empire and WSA Management. Accordingly, the motion court properly granted NYE’s motion for summary judgment on its cross claim against WSA for breach of contract for failure to procure insurance in accord with the provisions of the contract between Gemini/Empire and WSA Management.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Robinson Edmead, J.), entered May 1, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied that portion of defendant New York Elevator and Electrical Corporation, Inc.’s (NYE’s) motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint and cross claims against it, and granted that portion of the motion seeking summary judgment on its cross claim against defendants WSA Management Ltd. and WSA Equities, LLC (collectively, WSA) for breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Issues of fact exist as to whether prior malfunctions of the subject elevator provided notice of an unsafe condition that caused the malfunction resulting in plaintiffs injuries (see Rogers v Dorchester Assoc., 32 NY2d 553, 559 [1973]). Although NYE’s expert explained how construction dust may interfere with the operation of the elevator, he never stated the basis for his conclusion that the malfunction at issue was due to construction dust and not some other cause, and his conclusion was therefore speculative. Even if it was not speculative, the expert affidavit submitted by WSA raises issues of fact as to the cause of the elevator malfunction. We reject NYE’s assertion that plaintiffs’ claims that the elevator briefly dropped rapidly, reversed directions and ascended rapidly, multiple times, is physically impossible. Plaintiffs’ description of the event presents an issue of credibility.

The evidence conclusively establishes that NYE was the sue *651 cessor to Gemini/Empire Elevator Company with whom WSA Management contracted for maintenance of the elevator that allegedly malfunctioned. WSA further admitted in a reply to NYE’s notice to admit that, at the time of the malfunction, NYE was maintaining the elevator pursuant to the contract between Gemini/Empire and WSA Management. Accordingly, the motion court properly granted NYE’s motion for summary judgment on its cross claim against WSA for breach of contract for failure to procure insurance in accord with the provisions of the contract between Gemini/Empire and WSA Management.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 650, 9 N.Y.S.3d 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villalba-v-new-york-elevator-electrical-corp-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack