Marlon Parris v. Port of New York Authority
| Decision Date | 15 January 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2544.,No. 121678/03,2544.,121678/03 |
| Citation | 47 A.D.3d 460,2008 NY Slip Op 197,850 N.Y.S.2d 53 |
| Parties | MATTHEW MARLON PARRIS, Respondent, v. PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY, Defendant, and OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Plaintiff alleges he was injured when the escalator he was riding at the Port Authority Bus Terminal suddenly and violently "jerked" and "pulled," causing him to fall backward and strike his head. Although the escalator had safety devices designed to cause it to stop in the event of mechanical malfunction, this escalator did not stop but continued to carry plaintiff to the bottom, where he was found unconscious and having a seizure.
On their motion for summary judgment, defendants met their prima facie burden with evidence that, even assuming a mechanical defect, they were not negligent because there was no record of prior complaints about the escalator, Otis performed regular bimonthly preventative maintenance, and no problems were indicated in the service maintenance records it kept (see Gjonaj v Otis El. Co., 38 AD3d 384 [2007]; Kelly v Old Navy, 11 AD3d 345 [2004]). However, the court did err in finding that plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to Otis's negligence by submitting an affidavit of a certified mechanical engineer. Without even conducting an on-scene inspection, this expert asserted that the escalator could have jerked due to deterioration or wearing of various parts, and inferred that Otis had not performed necessary maintenance by replacing certain parts. These suggestions were speculative and unsupported by any evidentiary foundation, thus rendering the expert's opinion of no probative force and insufficient to withstand summary judgment (Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542, 544 [2002]; see Vale v Poughkeepsie Galleria Co., 297 AD2d 800, 801 [2002]).
Plaintiff's reliance on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is unavailing because he failed to demonstrate that the escalator, which was subject to extensive public contact on a daily basis, was in defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Luna v. Broadcom W. Dev. Co.
...; Espinoza v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. , 73 A.D.3d 599, 600, 904 N.Y.S.2d 3 (1st Dep't 2010) ; Parris v. Port of N.Y. Auth. , 47 A.D.3d 460, 461, 850 N.Y.S.2d 53 (1st Dep't 2008) ; Kleinberg v. City of New York , 27 A.D.3d 317, 318, 811 N.Y.S.2d 642 (1st Dep't 2006). Since plaintiff con......
-
Akter v. Denis P. Mullarkey, LLC
...*2 (1st Dept 2012); Eliasberg v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 79 A.D.3d 628, 628 (1st Dep't 2010); Parris v. Port of N. Y. Auth., 47 A.D.3d 460, 461 (1st Dep't 2008). Even without considering Carrajat's affidavit, however, and even in the absence of actual or constructive notice, G......
-
San Andres v. 1254 Sherman Ave. Corp.
...the misleveling on the date of the accident was caused by negligent maintenance is based on speculation ( see Parris v. Port of N.Y. Auth., 47 A.D.3d 460, 850 N.Y.S.2d 53 [2008] ). Plaintiff's reliance on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is misplaced under the circumstances ( see Meza, 82 ......
-
Roberts v. old Navy
...747 N.Y.S.2d 181 ; cf. 24 N.Y.S.3d 98 Bazne v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 61 A.D.3d 583, 877 N.Y.S.2d 321 ; Parris v. Port of N.Y. Auth., 47 A.D.3d 460, 460–461, 850 N.Y.S.2d 53 ; Kelly v. Old Navy, 11 A.D.3d 345, 346, 784 N.Y.S.2d 483 ). Since the defendant failed to satisfy its prima faci......
-
Expert witnesses
...therefore could not attest as to whether any particular version of the Building Code was applicable. Parris v. Port of New York Auth. , 47 A.D.3d 460, 850 N.Y.S.2d 53 (1st Dept. 2008). Mechanical engineer’s claim that escalator had jerked violently as a result of a mechanical defect that wa......
-
Expert witnesses
...could not attest as to whether any particular version of the Building Code was applicable. Parris v. Port of New York Authority et al. , 47 A.D.3d 460, 850 N.Y.S.2d 53 (1st Dept. 2008). Mechanical engineer’s claim that escalator had jerked violently as a result of a mechanical defect that w......
-
Expert witnesses
...could not attest as to whether any particular version of the Building Code was applicable. Parris v. Port of New York Authority et al. , 47 A.D.3d 460, 850 N.Y.S.2d 53 (1st Dept. 2008). Mechanical engineer’s claim that escalator had jerked violently as a result of a mechanical defect that w......
-
Expert witnesses
...diminution of value of property was purely speculative and conclusory. Property maintenance Parris v. Port of New York Authority et al. , 47 A.D.3d 460, 850 N.Y.S.2d 53 (1st Dept. 2008). Mechanical engineer’s claim that escalator had jerked violently as a result of a mechanical defect that ......