Westbroad Co. v. Pace Elevator Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Westbroad Co. v. Pace Elevator Inc.

37 A.D.3d 300, 829 N.Y.S.2d 529

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 300 (Westbroad Co. v. Pace Elevator Inc.) 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

Westbroad Co. v. Pace Elevator Inc., 37 A.D.3d 300, 829 N.Y.S.2d 529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J., and a jury), entered April 11, 2006, in favor of plaintiff building owner and against defendant elevator company in the total amount of $193,424.67, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

A judgment having been entered prior to trial dismissing defendant’s third-party complaint against the elevator company that plaintiff hired to fix the problems caused by defendant’s negligent performance, we decline to consider so much of defendant’s argument as presently challenges such dismissal (see D’Amico v New Castle Rent A Car Corp., 94 AD2d 686 [1983]; Glicksman v Smith, 43 AD2d 544 [1973]). In any event, the IAS court properly refused to grant defendant the indefinite adjournment it requested on the eve of trial, apparently for the purpose of locating a new expert witness to support its opposition to third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. Defendant’s request for a spoliation sanction against plaintiff, based on a claimed inability to perform tests on a piece of equipment due to corrosion sustained while stored in plaintiff’s basement, was properly denied for failure to show that plaintiff was on notice that the equipment would be needed for future litigation (see Lovell v United Skates of Am., Inc., 28 AD3d 721 [2006]; Herbert v City of New York, 12 AD3d 209 [2004]; Melendez v City of New York, 2 AD3d 170 [2003]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, Sweeny, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J., and a jury), entered April 11, 2006, in favor of plaintiff building owner and against defendant elevator company in the total amount of $193,424.67, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

A judgment having been entered prior to trial dismissing defendant’s third-party complaint against the elevator company that plaintiff hired to fix the problems caused by defendant’s negligent performance, we decline to consider so much of defendant’s argument as presently challenges such dismissal (see D’Amico v New Castle Rent A Car Corp., 94 AD2d 686 [1983]; Glicksman v Smith, 43 AD2d 544 [1973]). In any event, the IAS court properly refused to grant defendant the indefinite adjournment it requested on the eve of trial, apparently for the purpose of locating a new expert witness to support its opposition to third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. Defendant’s request for a spoliation sanction against plaintiff, based on a claimed inability to perform tests on a piece of equipment due to corrosion sustained while stored in plaintiff’s basement, was properly denied for failure to show that plaintiff was on notice that the equipment would be needed for future litigation (see Lovell v United Skates of Am., Inc., 28 AD3d 721 [2006]; Herbert v City of New York, 12 AD3d 209 [2004]; Melendez v City of New York, 2 AD3d 170 [2003]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, Sweeny, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 300, 829 N.Y.S.2d 529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westbroad-co-v-pace-elevator-inc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack