Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Meza v. 509 Owners LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 3, 2011

82 A.D.3d 426; 918 N.Y.2d 78

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Ezzard v. One E. Riv. Place Realty Co., LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
San Andres v. 1254 Sherman Avenue Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Walsh v. West Gramercy Assoc. LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Pui Kum Ng Lee v. Chatham Green, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Chambers v. Tilden Towers Hous. Co. Section II, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Jones v. Underhill Realty, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Fasano v. Euclid Hall Associates, L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Isaac v. 1515 Macombs (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

*427Defendants building owners and elevator service contractors established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Defendants submitted evidence demonstrating that they did not have notice of any defective condition of the subject elevator and that the elevator was regularly inspected and maintained (see Santoni v Bertelsmann Prop., Inc., 21 AD3d 712, 713-714 [2005]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to produce evidence of a prior problem with the elevator that would have provided notice of the specific defect alleged. Although there had been a misleveling problem with the elevator almost three weeks before plaintiffs accident, the evidence established that the condition had been resolved and that a different condition with the elevator was observed the day after the accident (see Gjonaj v Otis El. Co., 38 AD3d 384, 385 [2007]). Furthermore, plaintiffs reliance on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is misplaced under the circumstances. “[P]laintiff’s fall could have occurred in the absence of negligence and could have been caused by a misstep on [her] part” (Cortes v Central El., Inc., 45 AD3d 323, 324 [2007]). Concur — Saxe, J.P, Sweeny, Catterson, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.