Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"An elevator company which agrees to maintain an elevator in safe operating condition may be liable to a passenger for failure to correct conditions of which it has knowledge or failure to use reasonable care to discover and correct a condition which it ought to have found" ( Rogers v Dorchester Assoc., 32 NY2d 553, 559; see Fyall v Centennial El. Indus., Inc., 43 AD3d 1103, 1104; Oxenfeldt v 22 N. Forest Ave. Corp., 30 AD3d 391, 392). The defendant, an elevator company, established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of its responsibility for maintaining the elevator by proffering evidence that, at the time of the plaintiffs accident, it did not have a contract to maintain the elevator in which she was allegedly injured ( see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). In opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant was contractually obligated to maintain the subject elevator in a safe operating condition on the date her accident occurred ( see Rogers v Dorchester Assoc., 32 NY2d at 559).
Additionally, the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of the defect alleged by the plaintiff by showing either that the elevator was not in a defective condition at the time of the plaintiffs accident, or that it lacked constructive notice of the defect which allegedly caused the plaintiffs injuries ( see Gilbert v Kingsbrook Jewish Ctr., 4 AD3d 392; Proctor v Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, 277 AD2d 536, 538; cf. Lasser v Northrop Grumman Corp., 55 AD3d 561, 592-593; Lee v City of New York, 40 AD3d 1048, 1049). Accordingly, we need not examine the sufficiency of the plaintiffs papers on this issue ( see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).