Ardolaj v. TWO BROADWAY LAND COMPANY
| Decision Date | 03 October 2000 |
| Citation | 714 N.Y.S.2d 12,276 A.D.2d 264 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | HANIFE ARDOLAJ et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>TWO BROADWAY LAND COMPANY, Sued Herein as OLYMPIA & YORK 2 BROADWAY LAND COMPANY, Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant.<BR>ISS INTERNATIONAL SERVICE SYSTEMS, INC., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. |
At this juncture, it cannot be said that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur will not be available to plaintiff at trial, given the evidence that the elevator in question misleveled by up to six inches, that defendant was exclusively responsible for maintenance of the elevator, that plaintiff did not in any way cause the elevator to mislevel, and a question of fact as to whether plaintiff's injury was caused by the alleged misleveling (see, Dickman v Stewart Tenants Corp., 221 AD2d 158, citing Burgess v Otis El. Co., 114 AD2d 784, 785-787, affd 69 NY2d 623). Application of the doctrine raises an inference of negligence, supported by plaintiff's affidavit stating that the elevator had previously misleveled numerous times during the six months preceding the incident, that was not overcome by defendant's evidence that the elevator was regularly inspected and maintained. The same affidavit also raises an issue of fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice of a defect that caused the elevator to mislevel (see, id., citing Rogers v Dorchester Assocs., 32 NY2d 553, 559-562). The third-party complaint was properly dismissed in the absence of any evidence that third-party defendant was in any way responsible for the elevator's maintenance, or aware of any problems concerning the elevator's operation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ezzard v. One E. River Place Realty Co.
...to the basement, “which testimony must be treated as true on defendant's motion for summary judgment”]; Ardolaj v. Two Broadway Land Co., 276 A.D.2d 264, 714 N.Y.S.2d 12 [1st Dept.2000] [doctrine of res ipsa loquitur available to the plaintiff at trial based on evidence of elevator mislevel......
-
Goodlow v. 724 Fifth Ave. Realty, LLC
...in the elevator door (see Oxenfeldt v. 22 N. Forest Ave. Corp., 30 A.D.3d 391, 392, 816 N.Y.S.2d 563 ; Ardolaj v. Two Broadway Land Co., 276 A.D.2d 264, 265, 714 N.Y.S.2d 12 ; Lesman v. Weinrib, 221 A.D.2d 601, 602, 634 N.Y.S.2d 179 ; O'Neill v. Mildac Props., 162 A.D.2d 441, 442–443, 556 N......
-
Fiermonti v. Otis Elevator Co.
...1103, 1104, 843 N.Y.S.2d 137; Gurevich v. Queens Park Realty Corp., 12 A.D.3d at 567, 784 N.Y.S.2d 397; Ardolaj v. Two Broadway Land Co., 276 A.D.2d 264, 714 N.Y.S.2d 12; [941 N.Y.S.2d 659] Garrido v. International Bus. Mach. Corp. [IBM], 38 A.D.3d 594, 832 N.Y.S.2d 71; Bigio v. Otis El. Co......
-
Dzidowska v. Related Cos., LP
...of the elevator in response to those prior complaints raises an issue of fact as to notice (see Ardolaj v. Two Broadway Land Co. , 276 A.D.2d 264, 265, 714 N.Y.S.2d 12 [1st Dept. 2000] ). Supreme Court correctly denied the owner conditional summary judgment on its cross claim for common-law......