Carrasco v. Millar Elevator Industries, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 May 2003 |
| Citation | 305 A.D.2d 353,758 N.Y.S.2d 679 |
| Parties | CARLOS CARRASCO, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>MILLAR ELEVATOR INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he became trapped for one hour in an elevator that passed the floor he designated, stopped suddenly at another floor, and then began to shake and vibrate. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant, the company retained to service and maintain the elevator, claiming that the elevator malfunctioned due to the defendant's negligent failure to maintain it in a safe condition. The defendant successfully moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and this appeal ensued.
"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 NY2d 553, 559 [1973]; see Morales v Hefran Realty Co., 202 AD2d 407 [1994]). The defendant established prima facie that it had no actual or constructive notice of a defective condition in the subject elevator, as that elevator had neither stopped between floors nor shook or vibrated prior to this incident, and the defendant had not received any complaints regarding such activity (cf. Bigio v Otis El. Co., 175 AD2d 823 [1991]; O'Neill v Mildac Props., 162 AD2d 441 [1990]; Smith v Jay Apts., 33 AD2d 624 [1969]; Pugh v Weber, 29 AD2d 567 [1967]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had actual or constructive notice of any defective condition in the elevator such as would make it prone to stop between floors (see Tashjian v Strong & Assoc., 225 AD2d 907 [1996]; Di Marco v Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 170 AD2d 760 [1991]; Birdsall v Montgomery Ward & Co., 109 AD2d 969 [1985], affd 65 NY2d 913 [1985]).
However, summary judgment dismissing the complaint was improperly granted, as the plaintiff has raised a triable issue of fact as to the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (see Weeden v Armor El. Co., 97 AD2d 197 [1983]). Where, as here, the elevator was in the defendant's possession and control and the plaintiff did not contribute to the malfunction complained of, there is an issue of fact as to whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perry v. Kone, Inc.
...596, 933 N.Y.S.2d 871 ; Garrido v. International Bus. Mach. Corp. [IBM], 38 A.D.3d 594, 596, 832 N.Y.S.2d 71 ; Carrasco v. Millar El. Indus., 305 A.D.2d 353, 354, 758 N.Y.S.2d 679 ). Contrary to the defendant's further contention, there was sufficient evidence to support the Supreme Court d......
-
Fiermonti v. Otis Elevator Co.
...notice of the alleged defective condition of the elevator that would cause it to abruptly mislevel ( see Carrasco v. Millar El. Indus., 305 A.D.2d 353, 354, 758 N.Y.S.2d 679; Gaspard v. Barkly Coverage Corp., 65 A.D.3d 1188, 1189, 885 N.Y.S.2d 542; Narvaez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 62 A......
-
Isaac v. 1515 Macombs Llc
...condition concerning misleveling during the days after the inspection, but before the accident ( see Carrasco v. Millar El. Indus., 305 A.D.2d 353, 758 N.Y.S.2d 679 [2003] ). Nor is actual or constructive notice established by the mere fact that modernization proposals of BP Elevator of Mar......
-
Morton v. Otis Elevator Co.
...which it ought to have found." Rogers v. Dorchester Associates, 32 N.Y.2d 553, 559 (1973), quoted in Carrasco v. Millar Elevator Industries, Inc., 758 N.Y.S.2d 679, 680 (App. Div. 2003). In such a case, the elevator company may meet its initial summary judgment burden by producing competent......