Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani’s Michael Schacher, Senior Counsel in the Westchester office, was granted Summary Judgment dismissal of a plaintiff’s Complaint and all cross-claims in a premises liability cause of action filed in New York County Supreme Court in 2014.
The plaintiff, a former USPS manager, alleges that he sustained personal injuries in 2012, when he was entering the rear elevator at a building in Manhattan while conducting a route inspection of two USPS mail carriers. The plaintiff alleged that as he entered the elevator, his left foot tripped over the elevator car, which was raised five to six inches higher than the lobby floor. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff alleged injuries to his left knee, left shoulder, cervical spine, left wrist, and left elbow. As a result of his injuries, the plaintiff underwent multiple surgeries to his left shoulder and left knee. The plaintiff brought suit against the firm’s clients, the building owner, the property manager, and the building association. The elevator maintenance company was also named as a defendant.
Mr. Schacher successfully argued there was no evidence the elevator was defective, and even if it was defective, the defendants did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect. He also submitted work tickets and Category 1 inspection reports, which did not mention any prior mis-leveling issues. Mr. Schacher cited the testimony of multiple party and non-party witnesses who confirmed they never received any complaints nor did they ever experience any mis-leveling issues with the elevator. The firm was able to depose a non-party witness who contradicted the plaintiff’s version of the accident, placing the plaintiff’s credibility into question. The plaintiff argued that the defendants' motion should be denied, as there were issues of fact regarding whether or not the firm's clients had notice of a defective condition and violated NYC elevator codes. Both parties submitted expert reports from elevator inspectors and mechanics in support of their arguments.
The Court agreed with Mr. Schacher’s arguments and granted the firm's clients’ Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety.