Alsaydi v. GSL Enterprises, Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 April 1997 |
| Citation | 656 N.Y.S.2d 691,238 A.D.2d 533 |
| Parties | Abdo ALSAYDI, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. GSL ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant, Millar Elevator Industries, Inc., Defendant, Gemini Elevator Corp., Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Jacobowitz, Garfinkel & Lesman, New York City (Fiedelman & Hoefling, Jericho, William D. Buckley, of counsel), for appellant.
Chalos & Brown, P.C., New York City (Marco L. Spadacenta and Frank L. Pellegrini, of counsel), for defendant-respondent.
Before MILLER, J.P., and JOY, GOLDSTEIN and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant GSL Enterprises, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated March 25, 1996, which granted the motion of the defendant Gemini Elevator Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against Gemini Elevator Corp. are reinstated.
The injured plaintiff allegedly sustained serious physical injuries as a result of a fall down an elevator shaft in the office building in which he was employed. The injured plaintiff alleged that due to the absence of a required safety device, he was able to open the manual door on the freight elevator despite the fact that the elevator cab was not present at the landing. He commenced this action against, among others, GSL Enterprises, Inc., the owner of the building, and Gemini Elevator Corp. (hereinafter Gemini), which was allegedly responsible for maintaining the elevators in the building. The Supreme Court awarded summary judgment to Gemini, crediting Gemini's claims that it was contractually obligated to service only the eight passenger elevators in the building, and not the freight elevator which allegedly caused the injured plaintiff's injuries. We reverse.
It is well settled that an elevator maintenance company owes a duty of care to members of the public, and may be liable for failing to correct conditions of which it is aware, or failing 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). Moreover, a jury may infer negligent inspection and repair in the maintenance of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rawlins v. Shore View Real Estate Holding LLC
... ... SHORE VIEW REAL ESTATE HOLDING LLC and NOUVEAU ELEVATOR INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants. And a Third-Party Action. Index No. 514833/16, Mot. Seqs. Nos. 07, 08Supreme Court, ... care to discover and correct a condition which it ought to ... have found" (Alsaydi v GSL Enters., 238 A.D.2d ... 533, 534 [2d Dep't 1997]) ... Based ... on the ... ...
-
Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. AGG Creperie
...Palka, 83 N.Y.2d at 589, 611 N.Y.S.2d 817, 634 N.E.2d 189.The Second Department's terse decision in Alsaydi v. GSL Enterprises, Inc., 238 A.D.2d 533, 656 N.Y.S.2d 691 (2d Dep't 1997), does not reveal the extent of the contract at issue in that case. In the decision it cited in support of li......
-
Crum & Forster Specialty v. Safety Fire Sprinkler, CV-03-6308 (FB)(VVP).
... ... ("Safety Fire"), seeking to recoup $100,000 paid by Crum to its insured, Rainbow, USA, Inc. ("Rainbow"), for damage caused by the bursting of a frozen sprinkler pipe (the "freeze-up") at a ... Crum's reliance upon the Second Department's decision in Alsaydi v. GSL Enters. Inc., 238 A.D.2d 533, 656 N.Y.S.2d 691 (2d Dep't 1997) is also unavailing. The court ... ...
-
Casey v. N.Y. Elevator & Elec. Corp..
...Mach. Co., 40 A.D.2d 770, 337 N.Y.S.2d 293 [1972]; affd. 33 N.Y.2d 856, 352 N.Y.S.2d 198, 307 N.E.2d 256 [1973]; Alsaydi v. GSL Enters., 238 A.D.2d 533, 656 N.Y.S.2d 691 [1997] ). The documentary evidence proffered by New York Elevator, at this stage, does not, as a matter of law, prove tha......