Corden v. Schur Realty Co.
Corden v. Schur Realty Co.
11 A.D.3d 363; 784 N.Y.S.2d 486; 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12364
Opinion of the Court
The motions were properly granted given no evidence that the elevator in question had ever previously or subsequently malfunctioned, and an expert’s affidavit in opposition that is pure speculation concerning the cause of the alleged malfunction (see Rodriguez v Davis Equip. Corp., 235 AD2d 222 [1997]). We have considered and rejected plaintiffs’ other claims. Concur—Tom, J.P., Williams, Friedman, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.