Summary
This Appellate Division decision addresses a defendant elevator company's appeal from a trial court order denying its motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The court held that while the defendant established a prima facie case by showing compliance with industry standards and lack of actual or constructive notice, the plaintiffs successfully raised triable issues of fact regarding inadequate maintenance and prior elevator malfunctions. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial of summary judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court erred in denying Nouveau Elevator Industries, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross‑claims
- Whether triable issues of fact exist as to whether Nouveau failed to use reasonable care in maintaining the elevator and had constructive notice of a defect
Holdings
- The appellate division affirmed the order, holding that the Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment because triable issues of fact existed regarding Nouveau's maintenance practices and possible constructive notice.
Key quotations
“An 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.” (at 1)
Factual background
In November 2013 the plaintiff, Patrick McCall, injured his right hand when it was caught in the doors of an elevator at his workplace while he attempted to keep the doors from closing. Nouveau Elevator Industries, Inc. was contracted to perform regular maintenance on the elevator.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, Queens County denied Nouveau Elevator Industries, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross‑claims. Nouveau appealed the denial.