You are here: / / THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE NOTIFIED THAT THE ELEVATOR...
,

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE NOTIFIED THAT THE ELEVATOR DOORS CLOSED TOO FAST AND WHETHER REPAIRS TO THE DOOR COULD BE RELATED TO THE CLOSING VELOCITY; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HIS THUMB WAS CAUGHT IN THE CLOSING DOOR; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the defendant’s in this elevator accident case. Plaintiff alleged the elevator door closed too fast and his thumb was caught in the closing door. Plaintiff alleged he had complained to the building superintendent, a building maintenance employee and the management company about the door closing too fast. Both parties submitted affidavits from experts:

The superintendent-in-training on the date of the accident testified that he did not receive any complaints regarding problems with the elevator door. The field mechanic for [the elevator service company] testified that he did not complete any repair work with respect to the door opening and closing too quickly. He did, however, replace the elevator shoe which is a necessary component for the elevator door to be able to close … .

Plaintiff … testified that prior to his accident he had complained to the then superintendent, another building maintenance employee, and the management company numerous times regarding the velocity with which the elevator door closed. Plaintiff testified further that during one of his conversations with the management company regarding the elevator door, he was told that management would send a service company out to address the issue. Additionally, plaintiff testified that approximately two months before his accident, he witnessed a friend get hit in the shoulder by the fast closing elevator door, and that plaintiff and his mother reported this incident to the then superintendent and the management company.

The parties also presented conflicting expert affidavits regarding the potential causes of the alleged elevator door malfunction, including the purpose of the elevator shoe, and the relevance of the velocity with which the door closed as it pertained to the cause of plaintiff’s injury, which only further precludes a grant of summary judgment … . Mable v 384 E. Assoc., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06442, First Dept 9-3-19

 

You might also like
WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE.
PORTIONS OF A REPORTER’S VIDEOTAPED INTERVIEW WITH DEFENDANT NOT PROTECTED BY SHIELD LAW BECAUSE OF RELEVANCE TO A MURDER PROSECUTION.
All Ambiguities Re: Letters of Credit Resolved Against the Issuer—“Independence Principle” Applied—Beneficiaries of Letters of Credit Entitled to Payment
WHERE THE CRITERIA ARE MET SENTENCING AS A PREDICATE FELON IS MANDATORY, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SO SENTENCED BUT WAS NOT, PEOPLE’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE PROPERLY BROUGHT AND GRANTED.
Intervention Not Available to Vacate a Default Judgment—Default Judgment is Not on the Merits and Therefore Has No Res Judicata Effect on Putative Intervenors
Criteria for Judicial Review of Agency’s Action Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act Explained
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM BY ERECTING AN OPAQUE FENCE AROUND A CONSTRUCTION SITE WHICH BLOCKED DRIVERS’ AND PEDESTRIANS’ LINES OF SIGHT IN AN INTERSECTION; PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN WAS STRUCK BY A CAR WHEN HE STEPPED BEYOND THE FENCE INTO A LANE OF TRAFFIC (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED RENOVATIONS TO THE APARTMENT, WHICH WAS ONCE RENT-CONTROLLED, WERE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CHARGING MARKET RENT (FIRST RENT), COMPLAINT DISMISSED BASED ON LANDLORD’S DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.

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

BANK NOT LIABLE FOR PAYMENT RE: FRAUDULENT CHECKS SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF BUT ALTERED... PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ JANITORIAL SCHEDULE WAS MANIFESTLY...