You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE FREIGHT ELEVATOR WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL RULES, REGULATIONS...
,

ALTHOUGH THE FREIGHT ELEVATOR WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL RULES, REGULATIONS AND CODES, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A GATE CREATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION OF WHICH THE BUILDING OWNERS WERE AWARE, THE OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the building owners’ motion for summary judgment in this elevator accident case should not have been granted. Although the freight elevator was in compliance with all applicable rules, regulations and codes, there was a question of fact whether the absence of a gate constituted a dangerous condition of which the defendants were aware:

… [T]he plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the … defendants were negligent. The plaintiff submitted evidence demonstrating that prior to the accident, the Waterfront defendants were on notice of the dangerous condition of the elevator when they were provided with proposals from their own elevator service company, which proposals stated that because there was no gate on the inside of the elevator platform, an extremely dangerous condition existed … . Romero v Waterfront N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 00486, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

You might also like
THE BANK’S EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
Difference Between Law of the Case and Issue and Claim Preclusion Explained
Seizure of Evidence from the Pocket of the Defendant After a Pat-Down Search on the Street Not Justified Under the “Inevitable Discovery” Exception to the Warrant Requirement—the Doctrine Does Not Apply to “the Very Evidence Obtained in the Illegal Search”—A Justification for the Search and Seizure Not Relied Upon by the People Below Can Not Be Raised on Appeal
Lease Provision Allowing Landlord to Comingle Security Deposit with Landlord’s Funds Was Void—Question of Fact Whether Both Parties’ Actions Resulted in Termination of the Lease by Operation of Law
SORA Court Has Discretion to Deny Downward Departure Even When Mitigating Factor Demonstrated by Preponderance of Evidence
WHERE A MOTION TO RENEW IS NOT BASED UPON A CHANGE IN THE LAW, THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT FOR BRINGING THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT),
HERE THE FAILURE TO OPPOSE THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS DUE TO NEGLECT WHICH DOES NOT WARRANT VACATUR; THE MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER ENTERED ON PLAINTIFF’S DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT INSURER DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFFS (INSUREDS) VIOLATED THE COOPERATION CLAUSE IN THE POLICY (SECOND 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE DEFECT, A PROTRUDING BOLT UNDER THE HANDRAIL IN A STAIRWAY, WAS TRIVIAL... MERE DENIAL OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN A FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT THAT THE PLAINTIFF...