You are here: / / Although Elevator Company Which Agrees to Maintain Elevator May Be Liable...

Although Elevator Company Which Agrees to Maintain Elevator May Be Liable to an Injured Passenger, Here the Passenger Was Unable to Raise a Question of Fact About the Company’s Notice of a Potential Problem

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted the elevator company's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff alleged he was injured when the elevator suddenly stopped between floors but was unable to raise a question fact whether the elevator company had notice of the problem which caused the elevator to stop:

“An elevator company which agrees to maintain an elevator in safe operating condition may be liable to a passenger for failure to correct conditions of which it has knowledge or failure to use reasonable care to discover and correct a condition which it ought to have found” … . Nouveau established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that it did not have actual or constructive notice of an ongoing condition that would have caused the elevator to abruptly stop, and that it did not fail to use reasonable care to correct a condition of which it should have been aware … .

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether a prior problem with the elevator provided notice of the specific defect that allegedly caused the elevator to stop on the date of the subject incident. In addition, the affidavit of the plaintiff's expert was conclusory, lacking in foundation, and speculative … . Further, the plaintiff could not rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur because he failed to demonstrate that the accident was one that would not ordinarily occur in the absence of someone's negligence … . Reed v Nouveau El Indus Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 09116, 2nd Dept 12-31-14


You might also like
THE FIVE-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S DEATH AND THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE AN ADMINISTRATOR DID NOT WARRANT DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION; DECEDENT HAD BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE THE INDICTMENT ALLEGES MORE THAN ONE WAY TO COMMIT THE CHARGED OFFENSE, THE PEOPLE NEED ONLY PROVE ONE (SECOND DEPT).
AN ACTION CANNOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 WHEN ISSUE HAS NEVER BEEN JOINED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT CONTROL THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, NOT CONSTRUCTION. LABOR LAW 200 AND 240(1) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.
“Law Office Failure” Excuse for Failure to Enter a Default Judgment Within One Year Not Sufficient
EVEN THOUGH THE NUMBER OF POINTS WAS REDUCED BY THE CHANGE IN THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE RISK ASSESSMENT FROM “ARMED WITH A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT” (RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD) TO “INFLICTED PERSONAL INJURY,” DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO 10 DAYS NOTICE OF THE CHANGE (SECOND DEPT).
THE SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ARE GENERALLY PROHIBITED (SECOND DEPT).
Court Cannot Condition Future Visitation On Parent’s Participation in Counseling or Treatment

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

At Least Some of the Information In a Report Prepared for the Town by Outside... Actual Income Is Best Measure of Value of Income-Producing Property/Amount of...