Ramjohn v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.
| Decision Date | 28 June 2017 |
| Citation | 151 A.D.3d 1090,57 N.Y.S.3d 516 |
| Parties | Afrose RAMJOHN, et al., appellants, v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK and New Jersey, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
151 A.D.3d 1090
57 N.Y.S.3d 516
Afrose RAMJOHN, et al., appellants,
v.
PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK and New Jersey, et al., respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
June 28, 2017.
Mallilo & Grossman, Flushing, NY (Francesco Pomara, Jr., of counsel), for appellants.
James M. Begley, New York, NY (Juan M. Barragan of counsel), for respondent Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
Sabatini & Associates (Steve S. Efron, New York, NY, of counsel), for respondent Schindler Elevator Corporation.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.), entered September 10, 2015, as granted those branches of the separate motions of the defendants Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Schindler Elevator Corporation which were for summary judgment dismissing
the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion of the defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the defendant Schindler Elevator Corporation payable by the plaintiffs and one bill of costs to the plaintiffs payable by the defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
The plaintiff Afrose Ramjohn (hereinafter the injured plaintiff), who worked at LaGuardia Airport, was walking up a stopped escalator that normally traveled in an upward direction and was near the top when it suddenly began to move in a downward direction. As a result, she allegedly fell and sustained injuries. Prior to the incident, the injured plaintiff did not see anyone working on the escalator or anyone standing near the top or the bottom of the escalator. However, approximately 30 seconds after the incident, she encountered an employee of the defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (hereinafter the Port Authority) near the top of the escalator. She identified him by virtue of the Port Authority emblem on his shirt. The Port Authority employee was carrying "some sort of tool" and informed the injured plaintiff that he was going to lock the escalator.
The injured plaintiff, and her husband suing derivatively, commenced this action against the Port Authority and its escalator maintenance contractor, the defendant Schindler Elevator Corporation (hereinafter Schindler). Schindler and the Port Authority separately moved, inter alia, for summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Napolitano v. Jackson "78" Condo.
...186 ; see also Roserie v. Alexander's Kings Plaza, LLC, 171 A.D.3d 822, 823, 97 N.Y.S.3d 174 ; cf. Ramjohn v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 151 A.D.3d 1090, 1091–1092, 57 N.Y.S.3d 516 ; Johnson v. Nouveau El. Indus., Inc., 38 A.D.3d 611, 612–613, 831 N.Y.S.2d 527 ).Accordingly, that branch of ......
-
Totten v. Hampton Inn Long Island/Islandia
...of the Defendant, and that it was not due to any voluntary act on the part of the injured plaintiff. Ramjohn v. Port Auth. of New York, 151 A.D.3d 1090,1093 [2d Dept. 2017]. In reply, Defendant did not negate the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor. Jappa v. Starrett City, In......
-
Barrett v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., U.S. Airways, Inc.
...and that it was not due to any voluntary act or contribution on the part of the plaintiff." Ramjohn v. Port Auth. of New York, 151 A.D.3d 1090, 1092, 57 N.Y.S.3d 516, 519 [2nd Dept, 2007]. Turning to the merits of the instant motion, the Court finds that the Defendants have established thei......
-
Cavounis v. Figli Di San Gennaro, Inc.
...of res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable to this case, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Ramjohn v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 151 A.D.3d 1090, 1092 ; Doxey v. Freeport Union Free Sch. Dist., 115 A.D.3d 907, 909, 982 N.Y.S.2d 539 ; see generally Dermatossian v. New York......