Goldberg Segalla’s Andrew N. Fluger, a partner based in the firm’s White Plains office, secured summary judgment on behalf of an elevator maintenance and repair company in a high-exposure personal injury matter venued in Supreme Court, Kings County.

The plaintiff alleged significant injuries, including a left knee arthroscopy, a cervical fusion, and a three-level lumbar fusion, placing the case firmly in seven-figure territory. Despite the severity of the claimed injuries and the potential exposure, Andrew pursued a focused strategy aimed at defeating the plaintiff’s ability to establish liability.

All parties appeared for oral argument on competing motions for summary judgment. From the outset, the court was clearly familiar with the record and zeroed in on the dispositive issue of notice and whether there was any evidence of prior leveling issues with the elevator.

Andrew’s defense centered on demonstrating that neither his client nor the co-defendant had notice of any defect. Service records and testimony confirmed that there were no prior complaints or documented leveling issues with the elevator. When pressed on this point, plaintiff’s counsel pivoted to reliance on an expert affidavit in an effort to create a triable issue of fact.

Andrew effectively dismantled the plaintiff’s expert opinion by highlighting several critical flaws:

Plaintiff’s expert never examined the elevator;

Plaintiff’s expert never formally identified the make/model of the elevator;

Plaintiff’s expert was not able to dispute the testimony and service records, which do not show any prior issues with the elevator’s leveling;

The affidavit, as a whole, was without merit, as plaintiff’s expert, at times, opined as to a completely different elevator and not the elevator in question; and

We provided the court with case law where the plaintiff’s expert was specifically precluded/admonished by various courts for proffering similar specious and inaccurate opinions.

The court agreed, finding the plaintiff’s expert opinion conclusory and entitled to no weight.  Without admissible evidence to establish notice, the plaintiff could not demonstrate that either defendant negligently maintained the elevator.

As a result, the court granted summary judgment in favor of our client and the co-defendant, while denying the plaintiff’s motion in its entirety. The ruling resulted in a complete dismissal of all claims, which is an especially favorable outcome given the venue and the magnitude of the alleged injuries and exposure.

Andrew Fluger is an experienced civil litigator whose areas of practice range across the liability spectrum in state and federal courts, including commercial transportation and trucking, general liability, premises liability, automobile liability, and construction litigation. Andrew draws on a background handling vertical transportation litigation, representing many prominent and well-known elevator and escalator companies in the greater New York metropolitan area. He has extensive knowledge of all types of elevator technology and systems currently in use in commercial and residential buildings. He also draws on experience representing various corporate entities and health care professionals in civil matters. To learn more about this case and its impact, reach out to Andrew HERE.