You are here: / / PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED...
,

PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, LABOR LAW 240(1) INAPPLICABLE TO ELEVATOR ACCIDENT.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question fact whether a defective elevator part caused the elevator to fall when plaintiff, who was repairing the elevator, was in the elevator car. The court further determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) was properly dismissed because securing the elevator to prevent a fall would have made repairing the elevator impossible:

… [P]aintiff raised issues of fact whether the shim was defective and a cause of the accident and whether there was a failure to warn. Plaintiff’s expert opined that the cracked shoe caused the elevator car to get wedged in the hoistway in the manner that plaintiff described, and … [an] engineer involved in the design of the elevator acknowledged that the car could come out of the rails and get hung up if a guide shoe cracked while the elevator was descending. The engineer also testified that, after a previous instance in which a similar guide shoe by the same manufacturer had cracked because bolts had been over-tightened, [the manufacturer] had redesigned the shim in 2003 to prevent the guide shoe from cracking because of over-tightening of the bolts, but had made no effort to notify customers whose elevators had the older shims.

The elevator was not a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Plaintiff’s reliance on McCrea v Arnlie Realty Co. LLC (140 AD3d 427 [1st Dept 2016]) is unavailing. In that case, the elevator on which the plaintiff was engaged in repair work fell onto the plaintiff because it had not been secured. In this case, plaintiff was inside the elevator, riding up and down to test it. To the extent plaintiff may have been engaged in “repair” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1), the statute does not apply, because any securing device would have defeated the purpose of his work by precluding him from riding the elevator … . Versace v 1540 Broadway L.P., 2017 NY Slip Op 01813, 1st Dept 3-15-17

 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, LABOR LAW 240(1) INAPPLICABLE TO ELEVATOR ACCIDENT)/ELEVATORS (PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, LABOR LAW 240(1) INAPPLICABLE TO ELEVATOR ACCIDENT)/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, LABOR LAW 240(1) INAPPLICABLE TO ELEVATOR ACCIDENT)

You might also like
PEDESTRIAN IN A CROSSWALK STRUCK FROM BEHIND IS NOT COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.
Defendants Unable to Demonstrate that Plaintiff’s Alleged Breach of a Related Contract Relieved Defendants of the Obligation to Pay a Promissory Note—No Showing the Promissory Note and Oral Agreement Were “Intertwined”
Intent Must Exist Simultaneously with the Act/Accidental Discharge of a Firearm, Even Where the Shooter Intends to Assault the Victim, Does Not Constitute Intentional Assault/Loss of Police Officer’s Handwritten Notes Did Not Mandate Adverse Inference Jury Charge—Insufficient Showing of Prejudice
A SUBPOENA ISSUED BY AN ATTORNEY IS A “JUDICIAL” SUBPOENA SUBJECT TO A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING WITHOUT THE NEED TO FIRST SEEK A COURT ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE (FIRST DEPT).
Criteria for Fraudulent Inducement and Attachment
THE SPA PATRON WHO SEXUALLY ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF WAS INVOLVED IN A FIGHT IN THE SPA BUT WAS ALLOWED TO REMAIN; THE FIGHT DID NOT RENDER THE SUBSEQUENT SEXUAL ASSAULT OF THE PLAINTIFF FORESEEABLE BY THE DEFENDANT SPA (FIRST DEPT).
THE MOTION TO DISMISS THIS ACTION TO QUIET TITLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO WHICH PLAINTIFFS HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND; THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION TO QUIET TITLE PURSUANT TO RPAPL ARTICLE 15 (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROMISE TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS NOT UNCONDITIONAL BUT RATHER THE DEFENDANT’S HAVING AVAILABLE CASH TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT HAD AVAILABLE CASH, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT HEAVY METAL CLUB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF... IN THIS PROSECUTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT CELL PHONE COMPANY’S UNDERPAYMENT...