Caban v Rockefeller Ctr. N., Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Caban v Rockefeller Ctr. N., Inc. 2018 NY Slip Op 31326(U) May 22, 2018 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 301266/2011 Judge: Jr., Kenneth L. Thompson Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] lt1ht~ ~lT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX IA 20 X NORMAN CABAN, JR., and ROSEMARY CABAN, Index No: 301266/2011 Plaintiff, -againstROCKEFELLER CENTER NORTH, INC., TIME INC., THYSSENKRUPP ELEV ATOR CORPORATION and MAINCO ELEVATOR & ELECTRICAL CORP., Defendants DECISION AND ORDER Present: HON. KENNETH L. THOMPSON, JR. The following papers numbered l to 5 read on this motion for summary judgment No On Calendar of April 9, 2018 PAPERS NUMBER Notice of Motion-Order to Show Cause - Exhibits and Affidavits Annexed----------------_ _ 1, 4_ _ Answering Affidavit and Exhibits-------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 2, 5_ __ Replying Affidavit and Exhibits------------------------------------------------------------- _ _ Affidavit-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pleadings -- Exhibit------------------------------------------------------------------------------Memorandum of Law---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Stipulation -- Referee's Report --Minutes-------------------------------------------------------------Filed papers-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Upon the foregoing papers and due deliberation thereof, the Decision/Order on this motion is as follows: Defendant, Rockefeller Center North, Inc., (North), moves pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross-claims as against North. Co-defendants, Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corporation and Mainco Elevator & Electrical Corp., (collectively, Mainco), move pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross-claims as against Mainco. The motions are consolidated for purposes of decision and disposition. This action arose as a result of personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when he fell on an escalator on September 2, 2008, in premises owned by North and maintained by Mainco. After plaintiffs fall, the escalator was shut down and the Department of Buildings, (DOB), was contacted to perform an inspection of the [* 2] escalator pursuant to DOB regulations. The DOB inspector, Warren M. Smith, (Smith), found no violating conditions, and concluded that plaintiffs fall was the result of human error. (p. 71-72). There was no evidence that the escalator at issue was in a defective condition at the time of plaintiffs fall (see Cortes v Central El., Inc., 45 AD3d 323, 324 [2007]; Gjonaj v Otis El. Co., 38 AD3d 384 [2007]). Moreover, with respect to the Fujitec defendants, charged with ·maintaining the escalator in a safe operating condition, the record demonstrates that there was no defective condition that Fujitec could have discovered through the exercise of reasonable care (see Rogers v Dorchester Assoc., 32 NY2d 553, 559 [1973]). Rivera v. Merrill Lynch/WFCIL/Inc., 84 A.D.3d 524, 525 [1st Dept 2011]). Plaintiff testified that four or five steps from the bottom of the escalator, the step he stood on became wobbly and pivoted back and forth with a grinding sound, causing plaintiff to lunge forward and hit the floor hard. (p. 86-87). Plaintiff confirmed that he was the second of two people seen alighting from the subject elevator in the video shot from a building security camera. The Director of Security averred to the accuracy and completeness of the video. While plaintiff claims that the escalator step pivoted back and forth, the video shows that there was no movement of plaintiffs body until he began his fall at the very bottom of the escalator. Notably, plaintiffs co-worker, Phil Sclafani, avers that he turned his body once he alighted from the escalator and saw plaintiffs body shake. Sclafani further avers that plaintiff was only 2/3 of the way down the escalator when he fell down the steps. The video does not reflect any of Sclafani' s above referenced averments. While the credibility of evidence from a 2 [* 3] deposition and an affidavit may not ordinarily be determined on a motion for summary judgment, when the averments are tailored to avoid summary dismissal, such evidence cannot be used to defeat summary judgment. Phillips v. Bronx Lebanon Hosp., 268 A.D.2d 318, 320 [1st Dept 2000]). Plaintiffs expert opined that the failure to properly maintain the subject escalator caused the alleged instability in the step plaintiff stood upon. 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]). Plaintiffs 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 exclusive control (see Ebanks v New York City Tr. Auth., 70 NY2d 621 [1987]). Parris v. Port ofNew York Auth., 47 A.D.3d 460, 461 [1st Dept 2008]). In the case at bar, plaintiffs expert inspected the elevator September 19, 2014, more than six years after plaintiffs fall. Defendants' motions for summary judgment are hereby granted and the 3 [* 4] complaint and all cross-claims are dismissed. The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court. KENNETHU. 4

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.