Court Opinion

ID: 9958760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:11:09.903751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:49.429824
License: Public Domain

Burgess v LEC Consulting & Inspection Group Inc.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31036(U)
                     March 29, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 150411/2020
                 Judge: David B. Cohen
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.
                                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 150411/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 105                                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

                                 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                           NEW YORK COUNTY
          PRESENT:             HON. DAVID B. COHEN                                                PART                              58
                                                                                    Justice
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X      INDEX NO.          150411/2020
           JANELLE BURGESS,
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE         11/21/2023
                                                       Plaintiff,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.         003
                                               -v-
           LEC CONSULTING AND INSPECTION GROUP INC, FIVE
           STAR ELEVATOR TESTING INC., CHAMPION ELEVATOR
                                                                                                    DECISION + ORDER ON
           CORPORATION, CHAMPION ELEVATOR
           CONSTRUCTION CORP.,                                                                            MOTION

                                                       Defendants.
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

          The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 81, 82, 83, 84, 85,
          86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104
          were read on this motion to/for                                                      JUDGMENT - SUMMARY                   .

                    This is a personal injury case arising out of an elevator accident. Defendants Champion

          Elevator Corporation and Champion Elevator Construction Corp. (together, "Champion") move

          for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212. Plaintiff opposes.

                                  I.            FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

                    At approximately 10:50 a.m. on September 18, 2018, plaintiff alleges she was struck by a

          closing elevator door at her place of employment, located at 37-11 Queens Boulevard, in

          Queens, New York (NYSCEF 72).

                    Champion was the elevator maintenance company in charge of maintaining the elevator

          at issue (e.g., NYSCEF 83, ¶2), and the elevator had a single door that closed from left to right

          from the perspective of a passenger getting onto the elevator car (NYSCEF 82). The elevator

          was equipped with infrared light sensors that signaled the door to open when a passenger was

           150411/2020 BURGESS, JANELLE vs. LEC CONSULTING AND                                                        Page 1 of 4
           Motion No. 003

         [* 1]
                                                                         1 of 4
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 150411/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 105                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

           crossing the threshold, interrupting the light while the door was closing. These sensors normally

           functioned within "milliseconds" (NYSCEF 91, ¶21).

                     According to plaintiff, after a passenger got off on the ground floor, she entered the car

           standing to the left of a friend and co-worker who got on at the same time (id.; NYSCEF 88, at

           pp. 40-50). Thus, plaintiff was standing closer to the point where the elevator door began to

           close, and before she fully entered the elevator, the closing door struck her.

                     A security footage video captured the accident. Champion alleges that the video shows

           that plaintiff's body had not fully crossed the threshold where the light sensors are located, which

           is why the sensors did not detect her presence and the door therefore struck her before retracting.

           Champion also asserts that plaintiff was looking towards her co-worker while chatting and,

           therefore, away from the location of the closing door and did not see it. Plaintiff argues that she

           had crossed the threshold and the sensors should have detected her presence, thereby keeping the

           door from closing on her.

                     Champion's expert asserts that the elevator performed in accordance with

           specifications and industry standards, based on a site inspection performed almost five years

           after the incident (NYSCEF 91). Plaintiff's expert contends that the elevator was defective,

           because its door did not properly retract when plaintiff's body came to a point where the sensors

           should have signaled the door to retract (NYSCEF 101).

                     The experts also disagree as to whether the video reflects that plaintiff had gone far

           enough into the car to cross the threshold where the sensors should have caused the door to

           retract. Champion’s expert also calculates the force with which the door closed as less than that

           permitted by industry standards, and insufficient to knock plaintiff over under ordinary

           circumstances (NYSCEF 91 at ¶¶23-31), an opinion with which plaintiff’s expert disagrees

               150411/2020 BURGESS, JANELLE vs. LEC CONSULTING AND                                  Page 2 of 4
               Motion No. 003
       [* 2]
                                                           2 of 4
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 150411/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 105                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

          (NYSCEF 101, ¶14). The experts further disagree as to whether Champion was on notice that

          there were problems with the elevator that needed to be addressed.

                                                 II.        ANALYSIS

                 A party moving for summary judgment under CPLR 3212 “must make a prima facie

          showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to

          demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320,

          324 [1986]). The “facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party”

          (Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citation

          omitted]).

                 Once the moving party has met this prima facie burden, the burden shifts to the non-

          moving party to furnish evidence in admissible form sufficient to raise a material issue of fact

          (Alvarez, 68 NY2d at 324). The moving party’s “[f]ailure to make such prima facie showing

          requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (id.).

                 An elevator maintenance company may be liable for failure to keep the elevator in safe

          operating condition if it does not correct conditions of which it has knowledge or fails to take

          reasonable care to discover and correct unsafe conditions (Rogers v Dorchester Assocs.,32 NY2d

          553 [1973]; Xholi v 150 E. 42 Holdings, LLC, 218 AD3d 521 [2d Dept 2023]; Sanchez v 1067

          Fifth Ave. Corp., 192 AD3d 521 [1st Dept 2021]).

                 While Champion contends that it had no notice of any problem with the elevator door as

          it had not received any prior complaints about it, it submits no maintenance or inspection

          records, and thus fails to establish, prima facie, that it lacked notice of an unsafe condition

          related to the elevator (see Stewart v World Elev. Co., Inc., 84 AD3d 491, 495 [1st Dept 2011]

          [“a defendant is not entitled to summary judgment on notice grounds where there is a failure to

           150411/2020 BURGESS, JANELLE vs. LEC CONSULTING AND                                    Page 3 of 4
           Motion No. 003

        [* 3]
                                                         3 of 4
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 150411/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 105                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

          present sufficient evidence regarding its maintenance procedures in respect of an allegedly

          malfunctioning elevator”]).

                     In any event, plaintiff submits evidence that the elevator was issued violations during

          routine inspections in 2013, 2016, and 2016, and was rated unsatisfactory during safety testing

          from 2014 to 2018 (NYSCEF 101), which present triable issues as to whether Champion was on

          notice of an unsafe condition related to the elevator.

                     In light of this result, there is no need to consider the parties’ remaining arguments,

          including plaintiff’s argument that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies here.

                     Accordingly, it is hereby

                     ORDERED, that defendants Champion Elevator Corporation and Champion Elevator

          Construction Corp.’s motion for summary judgment is denied; and it is further

                     ORDERED, that the parties appear for a settlement/trial scheduling conference on August

          7, 2024 at 9:30 am at 71 Thomas Street, Room 305, New York, New York.

                     3/29/2024
                       DATE                                                          DAVID B. COHEN, J.S.C.
              CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                  X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                          GRANTED          X    DENIED       GRANTED IN PART             OTHER

              APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                       SUBMIT ORDER

              CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN         FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       REFERENCE

              150411/2020 BURGESS, JANELLE vs. LEC CONSULTING AND                                      Page 4 of 4
              Motion No. 003
      [* 4]
                                                               4 of 4