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
THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN SEVERAL PROSPECTIVE JURORS INDICATED THEY WOULD BE INCLINED TO BELIEVE THE VICTIM IN THIS SEXUAL ABUSE CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF NEGLECT AND DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE FOOD, CLOTHING AND SHELTER; EVIDENCE SUPPORTED EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT AND DERIVATIVE NEGLECT, DESPITE MOTHER’S HOME-SCHOOLING EFFORTS, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF, AN EXPERIENCED SKATER, FELL WHEN HIS SKATE HIT A RUT AS HE WAS COACHING HOCKEY; DESPITE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT “INHERENT COMPULSION;” HE ALLEGED HE WAS DIRECTED TO CONTINUE THE PRACTICE AFTER COMPLAINING OF THE ROUGH ICE (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiff Judgment-Creditor’s Action Under the Debtor Creditor Law to Recover Payment Made to a Limited Partner Time-Barred by Three-Year Statute of Limitations in the Revised Limited Partnership Act (RPLA)
PLAINTIFF IN THIS DERIVATIVE STOCKHOLDER ACTION DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THAT A DEMAND FOR RELIEF ON THE BOARD COULD BE EXCUSED, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE CLIENT OF THE CLIENT’S RIGHT TO ARBITRATE A FEE DISPUTE WITHIN TWO YEARS OF WHEN THE LEGAL SERVICES WERE RENDERED PRECLUDES THE ATTORNEY’S ACTION FOR PAYMENT OF THE FEE (FIRST DEPT).
THE FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING AMENDMENTS ACT AND THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY’S RULES REQUIRED THAT THE HEARING OFFICER CONSIDER PETITIONER-TENANT’S ACCOMMODATION REQUEST TO KEEP AN EMOTIONAL SUPPORT DOG IN HIS APARTMENT, THE HEARING OFFICER HAD RULED THE DOG WAS VICIOUS AND MUST BE REMOVED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST, THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT HAD A RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHEN THE PROSECUTOR SUCCESSFULLY ARGUED ADDITIONAL MOLINEUX EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED AT TRIAL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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 © 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...