HARRINGTON v. KEDEM REALTY CORP.


13 A.D.2d 1027 (1961)

Monica Harrington, Respondent, v. Kedem Realty Corp., Appellant-Respondent, and Deering Elevator Co., Appellant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

June 26, 1961


Judgment affirmed, with costs to plaintiff against both defendants, and with costs to the owner, defendants Kedem, against the elevator company, defendant Deering.

The proof was sufficient to show that before the accident the elevator did not level properly and that both defendants had knowledge thereof. Plaintiff was not required to prove the specific cause why the elevator did not level properly, because the court charged that both defendants were under a statutory duty to maintain all parts of the elevator in proper working order (Administrative Code of City of New York, § C26-1171.0). No exception was taken to this portion of the charge and, therefore, even if erroneous, it is binding on both defendants (Buckin v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 286 N.Y. 146, 149). Recovery over by Kedem against Deering was proper because the evidence was sufficient to show that the cause of the accident was lack of a repair which Deering was under a contractual duty to make (cf. Brown v. Knickerbocker Vil., 304 N.Y. 964). The failure to level did not come within the exclusion clause of the contract. After the accident the only repair to this elevator to correct the condition was an adjustment of its braking mechanism; and Deering conceded that under the contract it was obligated to make this adjustment. As between Kedem and Deering, it makes no difference whether Deering failed to appear at the building to service the elevator on the morning of the day when the accident happened as it was required to do, or whether Deering did service the elevator that morning and failed to find or correct the condition.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases