Booth v. Otis Elevator Co.

• Decision Date: 18 November 2021
• Docket Number: 14641,Case No. 2021–01131,Index No. 158604/17
• Citation: 154 N.Y.S.3d 439 (Mem),199 A.D.3d 506
• Parties: Patricia A. BOOTH et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Defendant–Appellant, Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

199 A.D.3d 506

154 N.Y.S.3d 439 (Mem)

Patricia A. BOOTH et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents,

v.OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Defendant–Appellant,Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center, Defendant.

14641

Index No. 158604/17

Case No. 2021–01131

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED November 18, 2021

Wiggin and Dana LLP, New York (David R. Roth of counsel), for appellant.

O'Donnell & Fox, P.C., New York (Thomas O'Donnell of counsel), for respondents.

Webber, J.P., Kern, Gonza´lez, Mendez, Shulman, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), entered on or about February 1, 2021, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motion of defendant Otis Elevator Company (Otis) for summary judgment dismissing the strict products liability cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint as against Otis.

Plaintiff Patricia Booth was injured when she was knocked to the ground when the doors to an elevator closed as she was attempting to enter the elevator; Otis had modernized the elevator eight years earlier. Otis established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the strict products liability claim by submitting evidence that the elevator door at issue was not defective (see Versace v. 1540 Broadway L.P., 148 A.D.3d 483, 48 N.Y.S.3d 666 [1st Dept. 2017] ; see also Haynes v. Estate of Goldman, Inc., 62 A.D.3d 519, 521, 880 N.Y.S.2d 609 [1st Dept. 2009] ).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Crediting the testimony of plaintiff's daughter that she was holding the door open button and that plaintiff had crossed the elevator threshold when the doors began to close, this establishes nothing more than a malfunction at the time of the accident, which is insufficient to maintain a strict products liability cause of action (see Steckal v. Haughton El. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 628, 629, 463 N.Y.S.2d 186, 449 N.E.2d 1264 [1983] ; Fernandez v. Otis El. Co., 4 A.D.3d 69, 74, 772 N.Y.S.2d 14 [1st Dept. 2004] ). The fact that Otis "both supplied the elevator and serviced it after installation would not impose upon [it] strict liability for a defect which developed after installation was completed" ( Steckal, 59 N.Y.2d at 629, 463 N.Y.S.2d 186, 449 N.E.2d 1264 ).