From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meza v. 509 Owners LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 3, 2011
82 A.D.3d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 4397.

March 3, 2011.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered April 28, 2010, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff tripped and fell while exiting an elevator, granted the motion of defendants Nouveau Elevator Industries, Inc. and Donald Speranza, Sr. and the cross motion of 509 Owners LLC and Emmes Realty Services, LLC for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Pollack, Pollack, Isaac De Cicco, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for appellant.

Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young Yagerman, P.C., New York (Joel M. Simon of counsel), for 509 Owners LLC and Emmes Realty Services, LLC, respondents.

Raven Kolbe, LLP, New York (George S. Kolbe of counsel), for Nouveau respondents.

Before: Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Freedman and Román, JJ.


Defendants building owners and elevator service contractors established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Defendants submitted evidence demonstrating that they did not have notice of any defective condition of the subject elevator and that the elevator was regularly inspected and maintained ( see Santoni v Bertelsmann Prop., Inc., 21 AD3d 712, 713-714).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to produce evidence of a prior problem with the elevator that would have provided notice of the specific defect alleged. Although there had been a misleveling problem with the elevator almost three weeks before plaintiffs accident, the evidence established that the condition had been resolved and that a different condition with the elevator was observed the day after the accident ( see Gjonaj v Otis El. Co., 38 AD3d 384, 385). Furthermore, plaintiffs reliance on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is misplaced under the circumstances. "[P]laintiffs fall could have occurred in the absence of negligence and could have been caused by a misstep on [her] part" ( Cortes v Central EL, Inc., 45 AD3d 323, 324).

[Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 31026(U).]


Summaries of

Meza v. 509 Owners LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 3, 2011
82 A.D.3d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Meza v. 509 Owners LLC

Case Details

Full title:DORIS MEZA, Appellant, v. 509 OWNERS LLC et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Mar 3, 2011

Citations

82 A.D.3d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 1576
918 N.Y.S.2d 78

Citing Cases

Moranska v. Affinia Manhattan Hotel

This court's prior decision held that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine did not apply here because plaintiff's…

Ezzard v. One E. River Place Realty Co.

Consequently, the notice-based claims were properly dismissed against the owner and Solow. They should be…