Legal Opinion
Meza v. 509 Owners LLC
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 3, 2011PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion 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…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Santoni v. Bertelsmann Property, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Gjonaj v. Otis Elevator Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Cortes v. Central Elevator, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
3Cited by10 opinions
- Ezzard v. One E. Riv. Place Realty Co., LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Isaac v. 1515 MacombsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- San Andres v. 1254 Sherman Avenue Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Fasano v. Euclid Hall Associates, L.P.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Chambers v. Tilden Towers Hous. Co. Section II, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.