Ezzard v One East River Place Realty Co.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Ezzard v One East River Place Realty Co. 2014 NY Slip Op 30426(U) February 19, 2014 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 114803/08 Judge: Jeffrey K. Oing Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SCANNED ON 2/24/2014 ., SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY ., , 1 PRESENT: '!!) JEFFREY K. OINQ ':. .~. ... . PART J.S.C. 'f0 Justice Index Number : 114803/2008 EZZARD, DANIELLE vs. ONE EAST RIVER PLACE REALTY SEQUENCE NUMBER : 003 INDEX N O . - - - - MOTION DATE _ _ __ MOTION SEQ. NO. - - - SUMMARY JUDGMENT The following papers, numbered 1 to _ _ , were read on this motion to/for _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause -Affidavits - Exhibits Answering Affidavits - E x h i b i t s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Replying Affidavits _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Upon the foregoing pape~. it is ordered that this motion is Mdv-. M~~"""' {AC(d<~te; 1 ~<IV~ ~·'J~'";/tNdl-.. w i= 0 ::::> .., "' I No(s)._ _ _ _ __ I No(s). - - - - 1No(s). - - . - - - - - i ~ti<~~ Jh:.::, w..wt, ~ c w 0::: 0::: w u.. Fl LED w 0::: >- ..:.:.. z ..J ~ ..J ::::> 0 u.. "' t; Ul w 0::: 3> ~ wz 0::: - !!? ~ 0 u.. w ..J "' 0 <( ..J z 0 ~ I- i= 0::: ~ f2 Dated: _i_,I_1 ~/_I 1. CHECK ONE: .................................................................:... LJ CASE DISPOSED 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ...........................MOTION IS: ['.]GRANTED 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ¢ ¢. ¢. ;.......................................... 0 aNON-FINAL DISPOSITION 0 DENIED 0 SETTLE ORDER ODO NOT POST 0 ~OTHER 0GRANTED IN PART SUBMIT ORDER FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 0 REFERENCE [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: IAS PART 48 ---------- ------------x D_ANIELLE EZZARD, Index No.: 114803/08 Plaintiff, Mtn Seq. Nos. 003 & 004 - against ONE EAST RIVER PLACE REALTY COMPANY, LLC, SOLOW MANAGEMENT CORP., and NEW YORK ELEVATOR & ELECTRICA~ CORP., DECISION AND ORDER Defendants. '.' JEFFREY K. OING, J. : aintiff, i ''JI ("Solow"), ( "NYEu) , ?014 NEW YORK .. ·-' ¢JN rt CU:Rt<:s nS:i:it: .· Danielle Ezzard ("Ezzard"), c~m~~eed this action against de Company, LLC . _l r s, One East Corporation ("One East"), Solow ra:::ion and New York Elevator & Electrical Co for uries allegedly caused by the mislevel "subject Street, a/k/a One East r In motion sequence no. pursuant to CPLR 3212, e~evator") Plaza of at 525 East 72nd (the "premises") . 003, One East and Solow move, for an order grant judgment dismissing the cross-moves, Place Realty them surrmary and cross claims. la pursuant to CPLR 3126, Plaintiff r a spoliation ruling based on One East and Solow's failure top surveillance footage of the accident and requests that the Court strike One East and Solow's answers or, in the alternative, preclude these defendants from offering evidence at ~rial on ~he issue of liability. 004, NYE moves, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for an order granting it s·'1rnmary J la and cross-claims against i . dis::niss [* 3] Index No.: 114803/08 Mtn Seq. Nos. 003 & 004 Motion se dis 2 of ce nos. 003 and 004 are consol ted 1 r sition. Background NYE entered into a wi~h contract NYE agre One Eas 11 service elevate and Solow, ( irs at any ti_me elevators within a (Id. at contract went into e f ect on S City, testifi spected the s time he noted in an (Vosseler 5/2 /12 EBT at pp. also testified that a miss 63). Before Trial 21, t enance The 8) 15) . at ( ("EBT"), that he 20:)7, ch rt and "unsecured" r J_ ma or licensed by New York ect elevator on ' electrical switch covers on at pg. pg. an e evator in olations for ling accuracy of the ember 1, 2007 Exa~ination st "one hour T 2) . of 1/4 inch ( Vosse~er, In maintenance" contract required NYE to ma ntain the chard evator Maintenance provide a mechanic for at d t r week for preventat emergency I es and other s 4 5, Hitchcock Reply Affirm., Ex. B) , NYE a per elevator rt ion" on seven elevators on the including the subject elevator Contract at pp. 007, wherein rform a full maintenance service program, irs of every des premises, 2, lacement supervision, tools, s necessary to addit t to "furnish a 1 material and all labor, and ed roof of t 9, -6, 23, 41, s ect eleva"'.:or 3, 68-70) cover could cause level Vcsseler, however, test ed hat: Vosse er p lems he [* 4] Index No.: 114803/08 Mtn Seq. Nos. 003 & 004 e 3 of or to be leveling p pp. 29-31, s in rly dur 34 35). an for Thomas Ba lato, an elevator techni levator t rat on ("Thyss ), NYE, testified in an EBT that he in ion of t Acco rformed a Local Law 10 st 27, 2007, elevator was leve a 4 ely 4:15, ion he each floor and that e evator were iff testified at her EBT that on S at 15- f 3 0, 7 5, 8 3) . (Id. at pp. 21, Pla days ing this in electrical switch covers on the roof of atta s (Ballato 12/16/11 EBT at pp. to Ballato's test found that ss the successor in interest subject elevator on after Vosseler's inspection l6) . at she att 13, 2007' subject ed to steD out of elevator into the lobby when her ri on_ foot became tr~e "lip of the floor," causing her to fall forward onto the floor (Ezzard 12/1/2010 EBT at pp. 104, 171-172). that ously observed the had p never complained about de subsequent affidavit, the elevator had dated S (Id. at pp. 332-334). ember 25, slevel 2012, plaintiff stated (Ezzard 9/25/2012 Aff., '![ 4). a doorman the ses, testif~ed tha-c he heard, but did not see, the plaintiff fa l EBT at -9, turned around 13-5, saw 31-32). r1e In a approximately two inches below the lobby floor when she tri Eloy Morel, levator mislevel, but had misleveling to anyone employed by the ember 13, 2007 s before She also -cestif i More further ainti::'f on L:he estif in an EBT (Morel 12/5/l that he at p. 34). Morel testified that any complaints regarding the elevators wou d [* 5] Page 4 of Index No.: 114803/08 Mtn Seq. Nos. 003 & 004 be writt pg. down in e s e elevator log book and at 8) . Michael Galvin, he 17 a concier d not recall rece rrdslevel be ng any comp re the te f 7/26/11 EBT at pp. 7 8, that at the premises, tes ifi int elevator about t plaint ff's accident (Ga n a in ts stif ed that any c He would have been recorded an elevator mislevel t building's elevator log book, but no entri s concern ng made in the six months prior to the accident sleveling we at pp. premises' 10 7, 11 7- L. 8) . Ga Residential Mana was told t elevator was level n ~estified r about t p at pp. rly evators whenever someone sa William Andrade, aff t 007, he level <Jl':f[ 1, ) . was told that ect elevator, and was then eva:.or was level According to Andrade, Andrade stated that he between che subject eleva:.or and the properly he in pected the elevate it was leveling properly at every Whi ember 13, ses on S 8/ -'-5/12 Aff., ng asked to make sure the subject 7 8). the , stated in an an employee of Thyss someone had tr pped lea and o 65-66). that he was called to the 4). to tripped exiting He stated tr.at upon ente2:'ing the premises ':f[ the t Ac 63 64). he or date of the accident at after it had 's practice is to call the elevator maintenance company to check at pp. ace have NYE send someone to check Galvin's testimony, Solow elevator hat he informed the lcor no leve floor, (~ at '3Vi[ 5, ng diffe ence even when us [* 6] Page 5 of Index No.: 114803/08 Mtn Seq. Nos. 003 & 004 17 a tape measure, he wrote that the subject elevator was "within 1/4 inch of industry standard at plaza level" on the work ticket for the call (Id.). John Diorio, a supervisor at ThyssenKrupp and its predecessor, NYE, stated in an affidavit that NYE' s work tickets for the premises indicated that no complaints involving the subject elevator were reported to NYE's mechanics or office from the time NYE assumed the contract on September 1, 2007 through September 13, 2007 (Diorio 8/13/12 Aff., <Jl<Jl 1, 7, 9). Delia Cruz, a Hospital for Special Surgery employee, testified at her EBT that during the eleven years she has worked at One East River Plaza she witnessed the elevator "open up where it was not even with the floor outside" at least once a week, although she later testified that she had never seen the subject elevator "open when the elevator was not even with the floor" (Cruz 3/16/12 EBT at pp. 8-9, 23-24, 29). Cruz testified that she once spoke to a concierge about the subject elevator "bouncing," "moving up and down," and "not getting steady so that [she] could get out of the elevator," but made no other complaints (Id. at pg. 29). In a prior affidavit dated October 17, 2007, Delia Cruz stated that the subject elevator sometimes misleveled "between two to three inches" and that, as a result, she had previously tripped while attempting to exit the elevator (Cruz 10/16/2007 Aff.). She stated that she was "sure" that management was aware [* 7] Page 6 of Index No.: 114803/08 Mtn Seq. Nos. 003 & 004 17 of the problems with this elevator, though she did not state that she informed the management of this problem (Id.). Rochelle Butler, another Hospital for Special Surgery employee, testified at her EBT that she had observed the subject elevator misleveling on multiple occasions, but never reported this misleveling to anyone associated with defendants (Butler 2/21/2011 EBT at pp. 11-12, 14-15, 19, 30-31). Michael Sena, a licensed New York City Elevator Inspector, stated in an affidavit that he examined the subject elevator on May 26, 2010, and found that the electrical switches on the roof of the elevator were not covered (Sena 9/21/12 Aff., ~~ 1-3, 5,). Discussion I. Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Spoliation Sanctions Plaintiff contends that by failing to preserve surveillance footage that may have recorded her fall, One East and Solow are responsible for the spoliation of essential evidence and should be sanctioned. Sanctions for spoliation are appropriate where a litigant "intentionally or negligently disposes of crucial items of evidence ... before the adversary has an opportunity to inspect them" (Kirkland v New York City Hous. Auth., 236 AD2d 170, 173 [1st Dept 1997]). The "determination of spoliation sanctions is within the broad discretion of the court" Paulin, (Barnes v 52 AD3d 754, 755 [2d Dept 2008]). A party seeking sanctions based on the spoliation of evidence must demonstrate: "(1) that the party with control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was [* 8] Index No.: 114803/08 Mtn Seq. Nos. 003 & 004 destroyed; state 7 of that the reccrds were ciest (2) '; and final y, f relevant: to the t the (3) rty' s claim or de could f the evi with a le 'cu strayed evidence was at the trier of se such would support that claim or defense" AD3d 33, 17 93 45 [ 2012]). st: party t In short, t ed " igation w!J.en it 08 AD3d 471, 473 [lst sanctioned must have reasonably anti 2013]). One East and Solow the requested surveillance footage because was recorded was reused after thirty days. claim, t'.1ey le to resent that they are an af f e tape on which it In support of s ~ from Haresh Persaud, an employee of New York Securi y and Communications, he company re ible for the operation of the surveillance cameras at the premises on the date of t ace Persaud stated that all surveillance nt. videotapes of the premises' rty days as 5/23/2011 Aff., of the normal course of business (~ersaud that a iation sanction is cause they cau d not have reasonably antic this lawsuit at the t did noth after -2). One East and Solow a iate were reused automatical ed the tape was re-used because plaintiff to alert them that she would be br until she corre1enced i:::his action on Octobe:::: 24, this suit 2008, over a year [* 9] 8 of Index No.: 114803/08 Mtn Seq. Nos. 003 & 004 afte the ace dent eleven months afte t~e 17 was reco erased. P aint re as t y antic d of pla Here, re .J_ est spos~tive. had a regula checked after anyone tripped ng the level Pi.s such, One the elevator (Galvin EBT at pp. 65-66). East at. fact is not iff' s accident. rd demonstrates that Solow practice of h 1 ated this law uit e inspect the leve ing of the e evat:or after being NYE emplo in One East and Solow demonstrated that f argues to Solow's actions demonstrate that they were act ensure the safety f others the bui ding, rather than ring for a law p 108 AD3d at 473, i has n that a lawsuit have reasonably antici ~at the time [the footage] 93 AD3d at 45, " iff a cou that One East or S to produce was destro G supra), aintiff's cross motion for sanctions is denied. II. Defendants' Summary Judgment Motions The of a sumrna judgment mot on must "make a of enti lement to judgment as a matt r of law, SS tende S of sufficient evidence to from the showing requires denial of se" and te any material he "[f]ailure to make such he motion, rdless o sufficiency of the opposing papers" 64 NY2d 51, 853 '.1985]). the [* 10] Page 9 of Index No.: 114803/08 Mtn Seq. Nos. 003 & 004 17 To establish a orima facie case for negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate plaintiff, ( 2) (1) that the defendant owed a duty to the that the defendant breached this duty, and ( 3) that the injury proximately resulted from this breach Anderson, 23 AD3d 163, (Friedman v 164-165 [1st Dept 2005]). A. One East and Solow's Summary Judgment Motion The owner and manager of a building have "a nondelegable duty to ... maintain [their] building's elevator in a reasonably safe manner" [1973]). (Rogers v Dorchester Assoc., 32 NY2d 553, 562 Solow and One East "may be liable for elevator malfunctions or defects ... about which [they had] constructive or actual notice" or for their failure to notify an elevator company "with [whom] they have an exclusive maintenance and repair contract about a known defect" 84 AD3d 457, 458 (Isaac v 1515 Macombs, LLC, [1st Dept 2011]). One East and Solow can "demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by showing that they did not have actual or constructive notice of an ongoing misleveling condition and did not fail to use reasonable care to correct a condition of which they should have been aware" (Id.). A lack of actual and constructive notice is established by demonstrating: (1) that no complaints about the subject elevator misleveling were made prior to the incident at issue, and (2) that regular inspections of the subject elevator were conducted which did not reveal any misleveling condition Dept 2007]). (G1onaj v Otis El. Co., 38 AD3d 384 [1st For instance, in Isaac v 1515 Macombs, LLC, supra, [* 11] 10 of Index No.: 114803/08 Mtn Seq. Nos. 003 & 004 l the defendant 17 ng manager and elevator company demonstrat i not ce of an the r lack of actual or construct the test misleveling condition t company representative that he had received no s from tenants or bui ct on about a we k before elevator passed dence that sleveling, staff e's test the accident as well as the elevator not ma serve the elevator misleveling during his monthly enance inspections or his post-a 8 4 AD3d at 4 5 8- 4 5 9) . S larly, here, One East and Solow have demonstrated that had no notice of a misleveling n' s Ga misleveling were made and testimony that no complaints Solow's elevator logs, t t no record of ch mislevel problems for the relevant time demonstrated thac no misleveling problems were found dur ect elevator's 2007 st 21, 2007 spec-cion, ch it passed, or ely following the a 's "., ion conce test observation of the subject its August L I r on September 13, 2007. t inti f f argues that he s:'..rnilar test ion, the tor mis level nr her I along Rochelle Butler and Delia Cruz, v~ wi~h creates a factual issue as to whether One East and Solow had notice of a mislevel gave test lem. Pla or statements i , Butler, and Cruz, however, never tha~ had ever inf armed anyone t associated with t defendants that elevator misleve . As such, their observed the s ~est ec:: and statements are [* 12] Index No.: 114803/08 Mtn Seq. Nos. 003 & 004 Page 11 o sufficient to raise an issue of fa t as to defendants' actual or constructive notice, as there is no evi proof in the record to indicate of these serva ions, eve ti ril hat de if t 7 sufficie t s had any knowl were true at 45 ~1st 94 l\03d 590, 2011]; 5 1 [1st Furthermore, Cruz's asserLion that she 2012]). ed a "bounc lem with the subject elevat " fails to create a ques ion of fact as to notice, as there is no evidence "was "s s t lar nature caused by the same or s al factor fl lar con~ributing d at 385, 38 Pla if f also points to the elevator service orders and ogs Solow Schindler Elevator Corp. or to the which record instances in which the subject elevator's rs fail (Harnick to firm. In ., Sxs. I, J). lure is consistent with intiff argues that such mechanical se elevator doors will not open if a leveling malfunction door zone" (Sena the elevator does not "come to rest wir 9/21/ 012 Aff., 'II 8). cannot create a all of These logs and s stion o he problems re ce reports, however, fact as to defendants' notice because d in the logs and service occurred be ore August 27, 2007, the date the s pas ace +- ' sufficient to establ sh One East and Solow's no..,ice of a leveling ace o t t Local Law 10 strates specti s ect: elevator Indee , the record hat there were no malfunctions recorded between the [* 13] Page 12 of Index No.: 114803/08 Mtn Seq. Nos. 003 & 004 17 August 27, 2007 inspection and September 13, 2007, the date of the accident (Isaac, 84 AD3d at 459, supra). Similarly, plaintiff's argument that the subject elevator's August 21, 2007 violation for unsecured covers over the elevator's electrical switches gave One East and Solow notice of a misleveling problem fails because Thomas Ballato's testimony establishes that the covers were secured six days later when he inspected the elevators and plaintiff offers no evidence that the covers were taken off between Ballato's inspection on August 27, 2007 and the date of the accident. The fact that the cover was unattached when Sena inspected the elevator three years after the accident does not establish that the cover was unattached three years earlier, particularly in light of the elevator inspector Nickolas Ribaudo's statement that the New York City Department of Buildings' records indicate that the subject elevator was inspected three times between the date of the accident and Sena's inspection with no violations for unsecured covers noted (Ribaudo 10/4/12Aff., '3!8). In the alternative, plaintiff argues that One East and Solow are liable under a theory of res ipsa loquitor, which "allows the factfinder to infer negligence from the mere happening of an event where the plaintiff presents evidence (1) that the occurrence would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence, (2) that the injury was caused by an ... instrumentality within the exclusive control of defendant, and (3) that no act or negligence on the plaintiff's part contributed [* 14] Pa Index No.: 114803/08 Mtn Seq. Nos. 003 & 004 13 0 to the happening of the event" 2003]). While ~allege he event t mislevel r ly occurs 11 se 011 ), the One Eas , Solow, se not exe of the e evator [is] not an the absence of negl gence" ce elevator maintenance contract NYE esta Solow d d ishes that One East usive control over the elevator 42 not applicable to d 350, 352 2007] [1st [res ilding manager where elevator contract, exclusive control over had, ction, maintenance c on si e to rs of the elevators, provided all c service calls, and performed a 1 routine maintenance and ions] 72 AD3d 272, from de 277 [lst [door sensor not 2010] building owner's exclus repair company "occasionally" not have excL1s control where door d repair contract]) irs on sensor Alt the contract does not explicitly prevent One East or Solow from rties to repair the e sufficiently simi l of One East and So S lies and , leveli it is as it required NYE to furnish all r expe ses necessa maintenance service program e evators' ring third elevator out of the exc usive material and replacement parts, provide a l r~OO_cS, ' re r to the contract in sub~ect cont premises, on did accuracy which labor, supe sion, to perf orrn a ma ain ng t a mech ic for 11 [* 15] Index No.: 114803/08 Mtn Seq. Nos. 003 & 004 Page 14 of ative ma nt:enance and emergency repa rs Maintenance Contract at 1 a tor . 1-5, 8, Hitchcock y Af rm., Ex. B). Based on t they t forego , One 2ast and So ow d not have actual sleve ing condit on the Accardi y, ubject elevator, s their metier: for summa a F and did not ject or. dismissing j plaintiff's complaint and cro s-cla and the notice construct exercise exclusive control over es abli hed against them are granted, ssed against di aint and cross claims are he them. B. NYE's Summary Judgment Motion Pla ~ntimely. iff rgues that NYE's motion should be deni d as after the note of issue was filed, 2012 st ed fifty-nine NYE's motion was served and in violation of the March 23, at ion agreement re qui in 45 days of (Coleman l1ff irrn. , Ex. B) (59) itive motions to all issue of the note fil As a result, it is untimely an 2008 ) . untime motion to be addressed, cause for 652 however, the movant must 2 NY del 648, [2004)). re, NYE's notice t resu t, e 60 March 23, ion was untimel because its attorney did not 20 2 s ipulat rroneously believed that the suminary j ys after the note of issue was fi ed , and, as a rcot oleman Aff rm. VJaS at [* 16] 15 of Index No.: 114803/08 Mtn Seq. Nos. 003 & 004 pp. 5-6). Delay due to a misunderstanding or "fai ate aim of law insuf ic [and] is cause under CPLR 321 to constitute ffice faL.ure . . . (a)" AD3d 284, 285-8 4 2007] to " is "no more satisfactory the motion was than a pe citations 49 AD3d 343 [1st NYE a s considered on One East its unt t Solow's t East and S ld nevertheless be se it ma same a s t ly motion for summary j ly summary j po nt. All and does "continue to pe mot on. ng unt of a t: .at a ly st:mmar:/ -; licat that are "essentially nt motions ly motion" would uate a culture of de in the cial 97 system [1st s as iff, as it was returnable the same day as One ow's t misses t 10 2008]). motion s ts merits not prejudice [ st 1 l\'.Y.3d [2008 17 2013]) While re s an i to NYS2d 13, 21 - ~ r is ru untimely cross mm: ions that address the same issues as the ri l motion, NYE's motion is not a true cross it sses the and Solow ( ain , rather at 23). I\cco mo~ion han er ss-cla because One East y, NYE's motion r summary judgment must be denied as untimely. Nonetheless, even if NYE' s surnr'.',ary j motion were timely, the res;_il t would not be different. that "agrees to mainta may be liable to a which it s an eleva or ssenger for n fail~re or for "fai ure I~r" e evato cor;tpany safe operating condition to correct ~o tions of use reasonable care to . -----------··· -----------------" [* 17] Page 16 of Index No.: 114803/08 Mtn Seq. Nos. 003 & 004 17 discover and correct a condition which it ought to have found" (Isaac, 84 AD3d at 458, supra). Although NYE demonstrated that it did not have actual or constructive knowledge of a misleveling condition through John Diorio's EBT testimony that no complaints concerning the subject elevator had been made to NYE during the relevant time period, William Andrade's EBT testimony that the elevator was not misleveling after the accident, and the elevator's passage of the Local Law 10 inspection on August 27, Prop., Inc., 21 AD3d 712, (Santoni v Bertelsmann 713-14 [1st Dept 2005] ), and plaintiff "failed to produce evidence of a prior problem with the elevator that would have provided notice of the specific defect alleged" (Meza v 509 Owners LLC, 82 AD3d 426, 427 [1st Dept 2011]), plaintiff has presented a viable negligence claim against NYE under the doctrine of res ipsa loguitor (Miller v Schindler Elevator Corp., 308 AD2d at 313, supra). Here, the "alleged misleveling of the elevator was not an event that ordinarily occurs in the absence of negligence" and the full service contract between NYE and One East established that NYE had exclusive control over the inspection, maintenance and repair of the subject elevator (Gutierrez v Broad Fin. Ctr., LLC, 84 AD3d 648, 87 AD3d 428 649 [1st Dept 2011]; Bryant v Blvd. Story, LLC, [1st Dept 2011] [citations omitted]). The record is also devoid of any evidence that plaintiff contributed to the misleveling of the elevator. NYE's reliance on Cortes v Central Elevator, Inc. is misplaced. In Cortes, plaintiff could not rely on res ipsa [* 18] Page 17 o Index No.: 114803/08 Mtn Seq. Nos. 003 & 004 i his cla for injuries susta elevator because he testified aL his EBT elevator a rnisleve ed state be re 45 AD3d 323 p intiff's EBT test floor when she fell. r after his 007]). 11 By contrast, e evator mislevel te y two inches below ngly, NYE's motion Acco r sunm1ary is den j Accordingly, it s r ORDERED that defendants One EasL ~LC d not see the hat he is that she felt t and that the elevator was l an while exit 1st 17 and j t (mtn s q. no. cross c are 003) Co~pany, ion's motion for summary Management Co So~ow ?lace Realty ssed agains and the comola ed, s them; and i is further ORDERED that defendant New York Elevator & Electrical ion's motion for summary j den and it is 004) is r ORDERED that counsel shal 64 (mtn seq. no. ca 1 l the Clerk of Part 48 at 386-3265 to schedule a status conference. This memo of the Court. Dated: ~I I opinion canst es the is on and o r

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.