Kachele v. Nouveau Elevator Indus., Inc.

186 A.D.3d 1626

129 N.Y.S.3d 833 (Mem)

Franz KACHELE, appellant,

v.NOUVEAU ELEVATOR INDUSTRIES, INC., respondent.

2018–04158

Index No. 703495/14

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—June 15, 2020

September 30, 2020

The Orlow Firm, Flushing, N.Y. (Thomas P. Murphy of counsel), for appellant.

Malapero Prisco & Klauber LLP, New York, N.Y. (Andrew L. Klauber and Cynthia P. Camacho of counsel), for respondent.

ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Timothy J. Dufficy, J.), entered March 1, 2018. The order granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, a patient transporter at Lenox Hill Hospital, allegedly sustained injuries on October 4, 2013, when he felt "a pop" in his left shoulder as he was pulling an ICU bed into an elevator on the eighth floor of the hospital. The plaintiff alleged that the floor of the elevator was misleveled with the eighth floor, and that this misleveling caused the ICU bed to stop. The plaintiff did not observe any misleveling at the time of the incident but surmised that there was misleveling based on how it felt when the bed stopped and because he had previously observed the elevator misleveled.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant, the company retained to maintain and service the elevator, to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained in the accident. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the plaintiff appeals.

"An elevator company which agrees to maintain an elevator in safe operating condition may be liable to a passenger for failure to correct conditions of which it has knowledge or failure to use reasonable care to discover and correct a condition which it ought to have found" ( Daconta v. Otis El. Co. , 165 A.D.3d 753, 753, 85 N.Y.S.3d 528 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Here, the plaintiff argues that the Supreme Court should not have considered the deposition transcripts submitted by the defendant in support of its motion because they were unsigned. This contention, raised for the first time on appeal, is not properly before this Court (see Martinez–Waszak v. City of New York , 142 A.D.3d 1053, 1053, 37 N.Y.S.3d 595 ). The...