Lisa Ellerbee v. 61 West 62 Owners Corp., et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Premises liability involving elevator door safety, code compliance, and evidentiary standards for summary judgment (including authenticated video and expert affidavits referencing specific industry codes/standards).
The Supreme Court, New York County denied the moving defendants’ motion for summary judgment, allowing the complaint and cross-claims to proceed.
The denial of summary judgment as to 61 West 62 Owners Corp., Cooper Square Realty, Inc., and Centennial Elevator Industries, Inc.
Movants showed the elevator was safe and code compliant; an inspection two weeks prior found maintenance at or near recommended standards, and authenticated video showed plaintiff inserted her hand into the closing door, making her conduct the sole proximate cause. Plaintiff’s expert relied only on general safety standards and cited no applicable industry practice, standard, code, or regulation, which is insufficient to raise a triable issue (citing People v Patterson; Santana v Metropolitan Transp. Co; and Buchholz v Trump 767 Fifth Ave., LLC).
Background
On June 25, 2012, around 8:30 a.m., plaintiff Lisa Ellerbee, a resident at 61 West 62nd Street in Manhattan, alleged she was injured when an elevator door slammed on her hand. Approximately two weeks before the incident, John A. Van Deusen & Associates inspected the elevator and reported it was maintained in accordance with local industry practices and operating at or near recommended standards. Video of the incident—authenticated by plaintiff as a fair and accurate depiction—shows plaintiff extending her arm between the door frame and the elevator door to keep it from closing.
Lower Court Decision
Justice Debra A. James (Supreme Court, New York County) denied the motion of 61 West 62 Owners Corp., Cooper Square Realty, Inc., and Centennial Elevator Industries, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against them.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division, First Department unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, granted the movants’ summary judgment motion, and dismissed the complaint and cross-claims as against them. The court held the defendants met their prima facie burden with evidence of code-compliant, properly maintained elevator systems and authenticated video showing plaintiff’s intervening conduct as the sole proximate cause. The plaintiff’s expert affidavit, relying on general safety principles without identifying violated industry standards, codes, or regulations, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see People v Patterson, 93 NY2d 80 [1999]; Santana v Metropolitan Transp. Co, 170 AD3d 551 [1st Dept 2019]; Buchholz v Trump 767 Fifth Ave., LLC, 5 NY3d 1 [2005]).
Legal Significance
This decision underscores that defendants in elevator-premises cases can secure summary judgment by demonstrating code compliance and proper maintenance, especially where authenticated video shows the plaintiff’s conduct as the sole proximate cause. Expert affidavits must anchor opinions in specific, applicable industry standards, codes, or regulations; generalized safety assertions are inadequate to create a triable issue (per Buchholz). The case also highlights the decisive role of authenticated video evidence in negating triable issues.
Where defendants show an elevator was code compliant and properly maintained and authenticated video indicates the plaintiff’s actions caused the incident, summary judgment is appropriate; plaintiffs’ experts must cite concrete, applicable industry standards or codes to oppose such motions.