These circumstances were held to support an inference of negligence by the elevator company (see, also, Kelly v. Watson Elevator Co., 309 N.Y. 49; Ames v. Watson Elevator Co., 303 N.Y. 732). In Pugh v. Weber ( 29 A.D.2d 567), plaintiff was injured when she tripped and fell as she was leaving the elevator. The elevator had stopped several inches below the floor level and the door closed rapidly as she attempted to leave.

The defendant successfully moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and this appeal ensued. "An elevator company which agrees to maintain an elevator in safe operating condition may be liable to a passenger for failure to correct conditions of which it has knowledge or failure to use reasonable care to discover and correct a condition which it ought to have found" (Rogers v. Dorchester Assoc., 32 N.Y.2d 553, 559; see Morales v. Hefran Realty Co., 202 A.D.2d 407). The defendant established prima facie that it had no actual or constructive notice of a defective condition in the subject elevator, as that elevator had neither stopped between floors nor shook or vibrated prior to this incident, and the defendant had not received any complaints regarding such activity (cf. Bigio v. Otis Elevator Co., 175 A.D.2d 823; O'Neill v. Mildac Props., 162 A.D.2d 441; Smith v. Jay Apts., 33 A.D.2d 624; Pugh v. Weber, 29 A.D.2d 567). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had actual or constructive notice of any defective condition in the elevator such as would make it prone to stop between floors (see Tashjian v. Strong Assocs., 225 A.D.2d 907; Di Marco v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 170 A.D.2d 760; Birdsall v. Montgomery Ward Co., 109 A.D.2d 969, affd 65 N.Y.2d 913).

One authority has stated that "[w]hether a repairer is under a duty to inform his employer [the product owner] of a dangerous condition, which he has not been employed to repair, but which he discovers in the course of making the repairs agreed upon, is not clear" (1 Frumer Friedman, Products Liability § 5.03 [3], at 68.1-69). This question appears to have been noted, but not answered, in this court's decision in Pugh v. Weber ( 29 A.D.2d 567; see also, Wissman v. General Tire Co., 327 Pa. 215, 192 A 633). The American Law Institute, in a caveat after Restatement (Second) of Torts § 403, indicated that it expressed no opinion on this question. We conclude that there is no valid reason to impose negligence liability upon a repairer of a product based on its alleged failure to warn of a design defect.