Arslan v Elevator Man, Inc.

[*1] Arslan v Elevator Man, Inc. 2006 NY Slip Op 50485(U) [11 Misc 3d 136(A)] Decided on March 27, 2006 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 27, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : GOLIA, J.P., RIOS and BELEN, JJ
2005-754 Q C.

Tamer Arslan, Respondent, THE

against

Elevator Man, Inc., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Charles John Markey, J.), entered October 6, 2004. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Order reversed without costs and defendant's motion for summary judgment granted.

Plaintiff, a parking attendant, for Garage Management Corporation (GMC), commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of falling after he slipped upon grease. The grease was on a car lift located within his place of employment. Plaintiff's employer's maintenance director testified at his examination before trial that the car lifts were lubricated and maintained by his employer, GMC. The maintenance director further testified that defendant performed no work upon the car lifts and that defendant's sole contractual obligation was the maintenance and repair of the two freight elevators located at the garage where plaintiff was employed. Defendant's president gave similar testimony. The testimony of the maintenance director and defendant's president was in accord with the contract between defendant and GMC.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant relied upon the deposition testimony of said maintenance director, the testimony of defendant's president, copies of the contract between defendant and plaintiff's employer, and defendant's work tickets which reflected that defendant worked solely upon the elevators. Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as [*2]the foregoing evidentiary proof was sufficient to establish that defendant did not cause or create the condition which allegedly led to plaintiff's accident (see Usman v Alexander's Rego Shopping
[*3]Center, Inc., 11 AD3d 450 [2004]). Plaintiff's deposition testimony was insufficient to demonstrate the existence of an issue of fact (see Siegel v Hofstra Univ., 154 AD2d 449 [1989]).

Golia, J.P., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 27, 2006