Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Doris Meza, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 509 Owners LLC, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
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.
_
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.
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 [2005] ).
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 plaintiff's 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 [2007] ). Furthermore, plaintiff's reliance on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is misplaced under the circumstances. “[P]laintiff's 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 [2007] ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 4397
Decided: March 03, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)