SANCHEZ v. Nouveau Elevator Industries, Inc., defendant-appellant-respondent. (2022)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Nouveau Elevator Industries, Inc., appeals, and the defendant Schindler Elevator Corp. cross-appeals, from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Denis J. Butler, J.), entered September 24, 2019.  The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of the defendant Nouveau Elevator Industries, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.  The order, insofar as cross-appealed from, denied the motion of the defendant Schindler Elevator Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the plaintiff by the defendants Nouveau Elevator Industries, Inc., and Schindler Elevator Corp.

In April 2012, during the course of his employment at the Rego Park Shopping Center in Queens, the plaintiff allegedly was injured when he was struck in the head by a freight elevator door, which moved downward without warning.  The plaintiff commenced this personal injury action against, among others, the defendants Nouveau Elevator Industries, Inc. (hereinafter Nouveau), and Schindler Elevator Corp. (hereinafter Schindler), alleging, inter alia, that those defendants were negligent in their maintenance of the subject elevator.

Upon completion of discovery, Schindler moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and Nouveau separately moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.  In an order entered September 24, 2019, the Supreme Court denied both motions.  Nouveau appeals, and Schindler cross-appeals, from the order entered September 24, 2019.

“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, 347 N.Y.S.2d 22, 300 N.E.2d 403;  see Syrnik v. Board of Mgrs. of the Leighton House Condominium, 198 A.D.3d 835, 836, 156 N.Y.S.3d 81;  Barcliff v. Schindler El. Corp., 197 A.D.3d 1228, 1229, 151 N.Y.S.3d 638;  Fajardo v. Mainco El. & Elec. Corp., 143 A.D.3d 759, 762, 40 N.Y.S.3d 121).

Neither Schindler nor Nouveau made a prima facie showing of an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.  The evidence submitted by those defendants in support of their respective motions failed to demonstrate that they exercised reasonable care to discover and correct a condition which ought to have been found.  This evidence, which included vague and unspecific maintenance records kept by Schindler and Nouveau, as well as the plaintiff's deposition testimony that no warning bell sounded prior to the door coming down and striking him in the head with such force that he fell to the floor, was insufficient to establish that the subject elevator door was functioning properly at the time of the accident (see Green v. City of New York, 76 A.D.3d 508, 509, 906 N.Y.S.2d 587).  Contrary to the assertions of Schindler and Nouveau, neither of them demonstrated, prima facie, a lack of notice of the alleged defective condition of the elevator door.  Since neither Schindler nor Nouveau made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we need not address whether the papers submitted in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to either motion (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642).  Accordingly, those defendants’ motions for summary judgment were properly denied (see Green v. City of New York, 76 A.D.3d at 509, 906 N.Y.S.2d 587;  see also Roserie v. Alexander's Kings Plaza, LLC, 171 A.D.3d 822, 823, 97 N.Y.S.3d 174;  Hudson v. Tower El., 60 A.D.3d 906, 907, 876 N.Y.S.2d 117;  Gilbert v. Kingsbrook Jewish Ctr., 4 A.D.3d 392, 392–393, 771 N.Y.S.2d 399).

The parties’ remaining contentions need not be addressed in light of our determination.

CHAMBERS, J.P., WOOTEN, ZAYAS and WAN, JJ., concur.