| Lasser v Northrop Grumman Corp. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07628 [55 AD3d 561] |
| October 7, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Alan Lasser, Respondent, v Northrop Grumman Corporation,Formerly Known as Grumman Corporation, et al., Respondents-Appellants, and Dover ElevatorCompany et al., Appellants-Respondents. |
—[*1] Gilbert Firm, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Elisa T. Gilbert of counsel), for respondents-appellantsNorthrop Grumman Corporation, formerly known as Grumman Corporation, and Northrop GrummanSystems Corporation, formerly known as Northrop Grumman Corporation and/or GrummanCorporation. Alan Lasser, Setauket, N.Y., respondent pro se.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Dover Elevator Company,ThyssenKrupp Elevator Company, formerly known as Dover Elevator Company, and Thyssen DoverElevator Company appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court,Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated May 14, 2007, as denied their renewed motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them, and thedefendants Northrop Grumman Corporation, formerly known as Grumman Corporation, and NorthropGrumman Systems Corporation, formerly known as Northrop Grumman Corporation and/or GrummanCorporation cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied theirrenewed cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar asasserted against them, and denied their renewed cross motion, inter alia, to preclude the plaintiff'sexpert from testifying at trial.
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by (1) deleting the provision thereof denying therenewed motion of the defendants Dover Elevator Company, ThyssenKrupp Elevator Company,formerly known as Dover Elevator Company, and Thyssen Dover Elevator Company for summary[*2]judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar asasserted against them and substituting therefor a provision granting the renewed motion, and (2) deletingthe provision thereof denying the renewed cross motion of the defendants Northrop GrummanCorporation, formerly known as Grumman Corporation, and Northrop Grumman SystemsCorporation, formerly known as Northrop Grumman Corporation and/or Grumman Corporation forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them, andsubstituting therefor a provision granting the renewed cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmedinsofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with one bill of costs to the defendants appearingseparately and filing separate briefs.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when a freight elevator door closed on him. The defendantsDover Elevator Company, ThyssenKrupp Elevator Company, formerly known as Dover ElevatorCompany, and Thyssen Dover Elevator Company (hereinafter collectively Thyssen) and the defendantsNorthrop Grumman Corporation, formerly known as Grumman Corporation, and Northrop GrummanSystems Corporation, formerly known as Northrop Grumman Corporation and/or GrummanCorporation (hereinafter collectively Grumman) established their prima facie entitlement to summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them by producingevidence that the elevator door was functioning properly before and after the accident, and that, even ifa defect existed, they did not have actual or constructive notice of any such defect (see Lee v City of New York, 40 AD3d1048, 1049 [2007]; Santoni vBertelsmann Prop., Inc., 21 AD3d 712, 713-714 [2005]; Farmer v Central El., 255AD2d 289, 290 [1998]; Tashjian v Strong & Assoc., 225 AD2d 907, 908-909 [1996]). Inopposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Lee v City of New York, 40AD3d at 1049; Farmer v Central El., 255 AD2d at 290). Moreover, under the circumstances,the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable (see Feblot v New York Times Co., 32NY2d 486, 494-496 [1973]; see also Cox vPepe-Fareri One, LLC, 47 AD3d 749, 749-750 [2008]; Graham v Wohl, 283AD2d 261 [2001]; LoTruglio v Saks Fifth Ave., 281 AD2d 399, 399-400 [2001]).Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the renewed motion and cross motion of Thyssenand Grumman for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as assertedagainst them (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).
In light of the foregoing, we need not reach Grumman's remaining contentions. Skelos, J.P.,Covello, Balkin and Dickerson, JJ., concur. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 31299(U).]