Lanzillo v. 4 World Trade Ctr., LLC

• Decision Date: 23 June 2021
• Docket Number: 2019–11109, 2019–14308,Index No. 714622/16
• Citation: 195 A.D.3d 907,150 N.Y.S.3d 727
• Parties: Karen S. LANZILLO, appellant, v. 4 WORLD TRADE CENTER, LLC, et al., respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

195 A.D.3d 907

150 N.Y.S.3d 727

Karen S. LANZILLO, appellant,

v.4 WORLD TRADE CENTER, LLC, et al., respondents.

2019–11109, 2019–14308

Index No. 714622/16

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

Argued—April 26, 2021

June 23, 2021

Godosky & Gentile, P.C. (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac and Jillian Rosen ], of counsel), for appellant.

Keller, O'Reilly & Watson, P.C., Woodbury, N.Y. (Amanda A. Tersigni and Kevin W. O'Reilly of counsel), for respondents.

HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J., ROBERT J. MILLER, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rudolph E. Greco, Jr., J.), dated May 29, 2019, and (2) an order of the same court dated November 20, 2019. The order dated May 29, 2019, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The order dated November 20, 2019, denied the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 2221(d) and (e) for leave to reargue and renew her opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order dated May 29, 2019, is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order dated November 20, 2019, as denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further, ORDERED that the order dated November 20, 2019, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she entered an elevator on the 38th floor of 4 World Trade Center (hereinafter the premises) and the doors closed on her. Eight elevators in the "B" bank serviced the 38th floor of the premises. The plaintiff commenced the instant action to recover damages for personal injuries against 4 World Trade Center, LLC (hereinafter WTC LLC), which allegedly owned the premises, Silverstein Properties, Inc. (hereinafter Silverstein), which allegedly managed the premises, and Schindler Elevator Corporation (hereinafter Schindler), which manufactured and was responsible for the maintenance of the elevators at the premises.

After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff could not identify the specific elevator on which her alleged accident occurred, there was no evidence of any prior notice of any problem with an elevator, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable. By order dated May 29, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion.

Thereafter, the plaintiff moved for leave to reargue and renew her opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. By order dated November 20, 2019, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff appeals from both orders.

"A property owner can be held liable for an elevator-related injury where there is a defect in the elevator, and the property owner has actual or constructive notice of the defect" ( Goodwin v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 156 A.D.3d 765, 766, 68 N.Y.S.3d 100 ; see Napolitano v. Jackson "78" Condominium, 186 A.D.3d 1383, 1383, 130 N.Y.S.3d 498 ; Tucci v. Starrett City, Inc., 97 A.D.3d 811, 812, 949 N.Y.S.2d 419 ). Similarly, "[a]n 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 N.Y.2d 553, 559, 347 N.Y.S.2d 22, 300 N.E.2d 403 ; see Roserie v. Alexander's Kings Plaza, LLC, 171 A.D.3d 822, 823, 97 N.Y.S.3d 174 ; Nye v. Putnam Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr., 62 A.D.3d 767, 768, 879 N.Y.S.2d 505 ).

Here, the defendants submitted sufficient evidence to establish, prima facie, that WTC LLC and Silverstein lacked actual or constructive notice of a defect in any of the elevators in the "B" bank that would have caused its doors to strike the plaintiff in the manner she alleged. The defendants also submitted evidence sufficient to establish that Schindler lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged defective condition, as there was no evidence of any such prior malfunction in any of the "B" bank elevators, and that it did not fail to use reasonable care to correct a condition of which it should have been aware (see Daconta v. Otis El. Co., 165 A.D.3d 753, 753–754, 85 N.Y.S.3d 528 ; Little v. Kone, Inc., 139 A.D.3d 678, 679, 31 N.Y.S.3d 147 ; Reed v. Nouveau El. Indus., Inc., 123 A.D.3d 1102, 1103, 999 N.Y.S.2d 182 ; Tucci v. Starrett City, Inc., 97 A.D.3d at 812, 949 N.Y.S.2d 419 ; Johnson v. Nouveau El. Indus., Inc., 38 A.D.3d 611, 612, 831 N.Y.S.2d 527 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavit of the plaintiff's expert, wherein he opined that the alleged accident was caused by a lack of proper inspection and maintenance of the infrared door detector edge, was speculative, lacking in foundation, conclusory, and was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Daconta v. Otis El. Co., 165 A.D.3d 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 A.D.3d 712, 714–715, 800 N.Y.S.2d 676 ).

In addition, the defendants established, prima facie, that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable to the facts of this case, and in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the accident was one that would not ordinarily occur in the absence of someone's negligence (see Daconta v. Otis El. Co., 165 A.D.3d at 754, 85 N.Y.S.3d 528 ; Goodwin v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 156...