At this juncture, it cannot be said that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur will not be available to plaintiff at trial, given the evidence that the elevator in question misleveled by up to six inches, that defendant was exclusively responsible for maintenance of the elevator, that plaintiff did not in any way cause the elevator to mislevel, and a question of fact as to whether plaintiff's injury was caused by the alleged misleveling (see, Dickman v. Stewart Tenants Corp., 221 A.D.2d 158, citing Burgess v. Otis Elev. Co., 114 A.D.2d 784, 785-787, affd 69 N.Y.2d 623). Application of the doctrine raises an inference of negligence, supported by plaintiff's affidavit stating that the elevator had previously misleveled numerous times during the six months preceding the incident, that was not overcome by defendant's evidence that the elevator was regularly inspected and maintained. The same affidavit also raises an issue of fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice of a defect that caused the elevator to mislevel (see, id., citingRogers v. Dorchester Assocs., 32 N.Y.2d 553, 559-562). The third-party complaint was properly dismissed in the absence of any evidence that third-party defendant was in any way responsible for the elevator's maintenance, or aware of any problems concerning the elevator's operation.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.