From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marszalkiewicz v. Plaza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 5, 2006
35 A.D.3d 176 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

No. 9739.

December 5, 2006.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered March 20, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Diamond and Diamond, LLC, New York (Stuart Diamond of counsel), for appellant.

Margaret G. Klein Associates, New York (Eugene Guarneri of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.


Plaintiff, a resident of defendant's building, sustained injury when allegedly defective automatic sliding doors in the lobby closed on her and caused her to fall. Defendant moved for summary dismissal on the ground, inter alia, that it had no notice of any alleged defect with respect to these doors. In support, defendant offered the deposition of its director of maintenance who stated that during the two years prior to the incident, no work had been performed on the door, its frame or the closing mechanism, and that he had not been advised of any complaints regarding its proper functioning. An officer of the company responsible for servicing the door further testified that defendant had made no service calls for the door in the year prior to this accident.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, this evidence was sufficient to establish defendant's prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see e.g. Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Tiano v Nick's Lobster Seafood Rest. Clam Bar, 300 AD2d 469). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to defendant's actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect.

Plaintiff's reliance on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is misplaced because she failed to demonstrate that the automatic door was in defendant's exclusive control ( see Ebanks v New York City Tr. Auth., 70 NY2d 621; Fetterly v Golub Corp., 300 AD2d 1056), or that her alleged injury could not have been caused by any voluntary action or contribution on her part ( see Jong Chan Lee v Bonavita, 216 AD2d 8).


Summaries of

Marszalkiewicz v. Plaza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 5, 2006
35 A.D.3d 176 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Marszalkiewicz v. Plaza

Case Details

Full title:HELEN MARSZALKIEWICZ, Appellant, v. WATERSIDE PLAZA, LLC, Respondent

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

Date published: Dec 5, 2006

Citations

35 A.D.3d 176 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 9058
826 N.Y.S.2d 34

Citing Cases

Bazne v. Port Auth. of New York New Jersey

Because Defendants have enumerated a number of potential causes for escalator stoppage directly resulting…

Williams v. Church

Before: Saxe, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley and Acosta, JJ. Defendant established its prima facie entitlement to…