You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE BUILDING MANAGEMENT COMPANY WAS LIABLE, PURSUANT...
,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE BUILDING MANAGEMENT COMPANY WAS LIABLE, PURSUANT TO ESPINAL FACTORS, FOR INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FALL INTO THE ELEVATOR SHAFT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the building manager, Synoptic, was liable in this elevator accident case. The elevator was subject to a code violation because a “drop key” was available to tenants which allowed the elevator door to be opened when the elevator cab was not at that floor. Infant plaintiff fell into the open shaft after her nanny opened the door. The contract between Synoptic and the building owner raised questions of fact whether Espinal factors imposed liability on Synoptic:

A contracting party may not be liable in tort to a noncontracting third-party for its negligent performance unless it launches a force or instrument of harm by creating or exacerbating an unreasonable risk of harm, the noncontracting third party detrimentally relies on its performances, or it completely displaces the other party’s duty to maintain premises safely … . …

Whether Synoptic made the repairs itself or was qualified to do so is irrelevant as to whether it owed plaintiff a duty. Rather its duty arises from its contractual obligation under the comprehensive management agreement obligating it to, inter alia, maintain the property and cause needed repairs to the elevator … .

Here, issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiffs detrimentally relied on Synoptic to perform its contractual duties to maintain, cause repairs to be made to, and correct violations regarding the elevator … , and whether Synoptic launched a force of harm by providing residents access to the drop key to use the freight elevator … . According to … deposition, [testimony]  Synoptic had notice that residents were using the drop key to access the freight elevator. Further, at the very least, issues of fact exist as to whether it had notice that the repairs to address the violation were never completed. XX v Dunwell El. Elec. Indus., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06376, First Dept 11-5-20

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE TRANSFERRED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO A THIRD PARTY DURING THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH ORDINARILY WOULD DIVEST DEFENDANT OF STANDING; HOWEVER, PLAINTIFF DID NOT WAIVE A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AND THE TIME FOR SEEKING A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT HAD NOT PASSED; BECAUSE DEFENDANT RETAINED AN INTEREST IN DEFENDING AGAINST A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO ARGUE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE; THE NOTICE ARGUMENT, HOWEVER, WAS REJECTED (FIRST DEPT).
Labor Law 241(6) Claim Should Not Have Been Dismissed—Although Claimant Did Not Perform “Labor-Intense Aspects of the Project” His Finance-Related Job Entailed On-Site Inspections
Insufficient Proof to Support “Medical Neglect” Finding
THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT).
THE ATTEMPT TO CORRECT A SENTENCING MISTAKE IN THE DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO BE PRESENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
From the Point When a Director’s Position Becomes Adverse to the Corporation, the Director Is Not Entitled to Discovery of the Corporation’s Attorney-Client Communications
DEFENDANT’S OFFER TO PROVIDE FALSE TESTIMONY IN A SEPARATE ACTION IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE LITIGATION PRIVILEGE IN THIS RELATED ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S BREACHED A CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISPARAGEMENT AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
Policy Taken Out to Cover Original One Story Building Did Not Cover Accident on Additional Floors Under Construction

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

RISK ASSESSMENT REDUCED FROM TWO TO ONE; DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF STATUTORY... FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED SOLELY ON THE IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH THE...