Opinion
10733 Index 155485/12
01-07-2020
PUI KUM NG LEE, etc., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. CHATHAM GREEN, INC., et al., Defendants–Appellants, Transel Elevator & Electric Inc., Defendant.
Molod Spitz & DeSantis, P.C., New York (Marcy Sonneborn of counsel), for appellants. Koster, Brady & Nagler, LLP, New York (Louis E. Valvo of counsel), for respondent.
Molod Spitz & DeSantis, P.C., New York (Marcy Sonneborn of counsel), for appellants.
Koster, Brady & Nagler, LLP, New York (Louis E. Valvo of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Manzanet–Daniels, Kapnick, Oing, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kelly O'Neill Levy, J.), entered March 29, 2019, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motion of defendants Chatham Green, Inc., Chatham Green Management Corp. and Gerard J. Picaso, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Defendants established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff's decedent was injured when the door to the wheelchair lift on the exterior of the building in which they lived malfunctioned causing him to fall out of the lift. Defendants submitted evidence demonstrating that they did not have notice of any malfunction in the subject door through service records showing no issues related to the door opening prematurely (see Meza v. 509 Owners LLC , 82 A.D.3d 426, 918 N.Y.S.2d 78 [1st Dept. 2011] ; Lee v. City of New York , 40 A.D.3d 1048, 836 N.Y.S.2d 688 [2d Dept. 2007] ).
In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff did not submit any evidence that complaints about the lift were similar in nature or caused by similar contributing factors (see Gjonaj v. Otis El. Co. , 38 A.D.3d 384, 385, 832 N.Y.S.2d 189 [1st Dept. 2007] ). Nor is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applicable under the circumstances presented (see Torres–Martinez v. Macy's, Inc. , 146 A.D.3d 638, 639, 45 N.Y.S.3d 449 [1st Dept. 2017] ; Parris v. Port of N.Y. Auth. , 47 A.D.3d 460, 850 N.Y.S.2d 53 [1st Dept. 2008] ).