Haynes v. Estate of Sol Goldman, 4512.

Decision Date19 May 2009
Docket Number4512.,4511.
PartiesROBERT HAYNES, Appellant, v. ESTATE OF SOL GOLDMAN, Deceased, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. ALLIANCE ELEVATOR COMPANY, Doing Business as UNITEC ELEVATOR COMPANY, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MOHAMMAD FOFANA, Third-Party Defendant. ROBERT HAYNES, Plaintiff, v. ESTATE OF SOL GOLDMAN, Deceased, et al., Respondents, and NEWMARK & COMPANY REAL ESTATE, INC., Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.)
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

On February 6, 2004, plaintiff and another person named Mohammad Fofana were injured when they fell down the freight elevator hoistway from the fourth floor of a building located at 45 West 34th Street. The premises were net leased to Midboro Holding at the time, and had been managed by Newmark. Plaintiff had a dispute with Fofana and the two engaged in a fight in a narrow hallway on the fourth floor. According to Fofana's deposition, plaintiff pushed him into the hoistway door. The complaint alleged negligence on the part of the building's owners, its managing agent and Alliance, the owners' elevator service contractor. Plaintiff testified that the hoistway door opened after Fofana stepped backward and came into contact with it. Plaintiff further swore that Fofana then clutched him in an effort to break his fall, causing both men to fall into the hoistway.

According to the affidavit of Patrick McPartland, P.E., the Goldman defendants' expert, the doors of the manually operated elevator in question consisted of two solid panels. The first panel opened by sliding right to left. The second panel was hinged to the wall. The sliding panel hung from a track by rollers, and was retained at the bottom by a six-inch guide which McPartland described as a "U" channel. Thomas Davies, a supervisor elevator inspector from the New York City Department of Buildings, inspected the site within 80 minutes after the accident. He testified that the sliding panel guide was bent and protruded into the hoistway in a manner indicating that a substantial horizontal force had been exerted against the sliding panel. In examining other parts of the building, Davies recorded loose and missing hanger track bolts which rendered the 12th floor hoistway door ready to fall. Davies's report also noted that the rest of the hoistway doors were loose and poorly secured. McPartland opined that the damage to the guide could only have been caused by the application of the kind of force described by Davies in excess of 250 pounds. McPartland further opined that the applied force caused the sliding panel to swing out into the elevator shaft, creating the opening through which plaintiff and Fofana fell. Bernard Hughes, Alliance's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Forde v. Trust
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 1, 2011
    ...to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Cilinger v. Arditi Realty Corp., 77 A.D.3d at 882–883, 911 N.Y.S.2d 75; Haynes v. Estate of Goldman, 62 A.D.3d 519, 521, 880 N.Y.S.2d 609; Santoni v. Bertelsmann Prop., Inc., 21 A.D.3d 712, 715, 800 N.Y.S.2d 676; Vale v. Poughkeepsie Galleria Co., 297 ......
  • Lanzillo v. 4 World Trade Ctr., LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 23, 2021
    ...at 754, 85 N.Y.S.3d 528 ; Goodwin v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 156 A.D.3d 765, 767, 68 N.Y.S.3d 100 ; Haynes v. Estate of Goldman, 62 A.D.3d 519, 521, 880 N.Y.S.2d 609 ; Johnson v. Nouveau El. Indus., Inc., 38 A.D.3d at 612–613, 831 N.Y.S.2d 527 ; Santoni v. Bertelsmann Prop., Inc., 21......
  • Reed v. Nouveau Elevator Indus., Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 31, 2014
    ...89 A.D.3d at 679, 931 N.Y.S.2d 687 ; Cilinger v. Arditi Realty Corp., 77 A.D.3d at 882, 911 N.Y.S.2d 75 ; Haynes v. Estate of Goldman, 62 A.D.3d 519, 521, 880 N.Y.S.2d 609 ; cf. Dos Santos v. Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 85 A.D.3d 718, 721, 924 N.Y.S.2d 558 ). Further, the plaintiff could ......
  • Fofana v. 41 West 34th St., LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 9, 2010
    ...complaint, finding that defendants had made a prima facie showing that the accident was not caused by any defect in the hoistway door (62 A.D.3d 519, 521, 880 N.Y.S.2d 609 [2009] ). In particular, the Court noted that an elevator inspector from the New York City Department of Buildings who ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT