From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kotzapigikogloy v. Seventy Ninth Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 21, 1991
170 A.D.2d 356 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 21, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).


Plaintiff alleges he was injured when a lighting fixture in an elevator fell on him. Third-party defendant Westinghouse installed and services the elevator pursuant to a contract which expressly excludes lights and lighting fixtures from the scope of its coverage. The deposition testimony of an employee who serviced the elevator on behalf of Westinghouse shows that Westinghouse did not voluntarily undertake to repair or maintain the light fixtures. The third-party plaintiffs' opposition to the motion consists only of conclusory assertions, speculation, conjecture and surmise to the effect that the light fixture was improperly designed by Westinghouse (see, Smith v Johnson Prods. Co., 95 A.D.2d 675). Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was properly granted.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

Kotzapigikogloy v. Seventy Ninth Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 21, 1991
170 A.D.2d 356 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Kotzapigikogloy v. Seventy Ninth Associates

Case Details

Full title:KONSTANTINOS KOTZAPIGIKOGLOY et al., Plaintiffs, v. SEVENTY NINTH…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 21, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 356 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
566 N.Y.S.2d 58