Graham v. Wohl
| Decision Date | 17 May 2001 |
| Citation | 724 N.Y.S.2d 416,283 A.D.2d 261 |
| Parties | MONICA GRAHAM, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>RONNIE J. WOHL et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Plaintiff's allegations that she sustained an injury when an elevator door abruptly and unexpectedly closed as she was entering the elevator, striking and pinning her against the side of the elevator without retracting, are insufficient to permit an inference of negligent maintenance of some mechanical device controlling the operation of the door. Accordingly, plaintiff's claims of negligence against defendants building owner, managing agent and elevator service company, which admittedly depend entirely upon the applicability of res ipsa loquitur, were properly dismissed (Feblot v New York Times Co., 32 NY2d 486). More particularly, plaintiff's version of the incident, accepted as true, does not rule out the possibility that her injury was caused by her own voluntary actions, notwithstanding that the door closed on her quickly and did not retract before or immediately upon contact (id., at 495-496; see, Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219, 226). Plaintiff chose when to enter the elevator and apparently was not watching its door as she did so since, according to her deposition testimony, her companion, who was at her side and closer to the closing door, was able to step out of its way. In addition, plaintiff does not claim that she made any attempt to put pressure on the door's safety bumper such as might have caused the door to retract, and testified that she was able to free herself from door, which closed with "medium" force.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Akter v. Denis P. Mullarkey, LLC
...door could have affected the happening of the accident, see e.g. Feblot v. New York Times Co., 32 N.Y.2d 486, 495496 (1973); Graham v. Wohl, 283 A.D.2d 261 (Is1 Dept 2001), here there is no evidence that any act by Akter contributed to the elevator malfunction. With respect to the exclusive......
-
Barkley v. Plaza Realty Investors Inc.
...inadvertently pressed the door close button], lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 703, 886 N.Y.S.2d 366, 915 N.E.2d 291 [2009] ; Graham v Wohl, 283 A.D.2d 261, 724 N.Y.S.2d 416 [1st Dept.2001] [res ipsa inapplicable where the plaintiff did not claim that she put any pressure on the door's safety bumper in......
-
Stockhamer v. St. Joseph's Hosp., Yonkers, St. Joseph's Hosp. Nursing Home of Yonkers, N.Y., Inc.
...on how the accident occurred. Plaintiff's reliance on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is also misplaced. See Graham v. Wohl, 283 A.D.2d 261, 724 N.Y.S.2d 416 (1st Dep't 2001). She has not established that the door detector was within defendants' exclusive control. See Cox v. Pepe-Fareri O......
-
Pacheco v. Serviam Gardens Assocs., L.P.
...There is also no indication that plaintiff was watching the elevator door as she was speaking to her friend (see Graham v. Wohl, 283 A.D.2d 261, 724 N.Y.S.2d 416 [1st Dept. 2001] ). Furthermore, the conclusory offerings of plaintiff's expert do not warrant a different result (see e.g. Santo......