## Facts

- Sianna Singh was injured while walking through automatic swinging doors in an enclosed interior walkway between two buildings owned and occupied by United Cerebral Palsy of New York City, Inc. and a related entity (collectively, UCP).
- On December 5, 2003, the doors were open as Singh approached; her colleague walked through first without incident.
- As Singh walked through, the doors allegedly closed and struck her shoulders.
- The doors used an overhead motion sensor; Singh alleged the sensor failed to detect her and permitted the doors to close on her.
- UCP’s in-house maintenance staff did not repair the doors or sensor; UCP contacted Miric Industries, Inc. as needed, and Miric contacted Reliable Door Corp. to perform door work.
- A May 14, 2002 invoice reflected Reliable had adjusted the motion sensor before the accident.
- Singh claimed UCP had actual or constructive notice of door problems and failed to reasonably inspect and maintain the doors.

## Issues

1. Whether Singh could rely on res ipsa loquitur against UCP for an automatic-door malfunction, including whether UCP had “exclusive control” of the doors for purposes of the doctrine.
2. Whether Miric and Reliable established entitlement to summary judgment by showing the absence of triable issues as to their negligence.
3. Whether the record, viewed most favorably to Singh, raised triable issues regarding a defect, maintenance responsibility, and negligence sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed denial of summary judgment to UCP.
- The court held the circumstances permitted a jury to apply res ipsa loquitur and infer negligence from an automatic-door malfunction that struck a passerby.
- The court rejected UCP’s argument that contractor involvement and public use defeated “exclusive control” as a matter of law.
- The court affirmed denial of summary judgment to Reliable (and similarly to Miric), concluding that evidence of prior sensor adjustment and reported door problems created triable issues regarding negligent maintenance or repair.
- The action was left for trial because negligence and allocation of responsibility could not be resolved as a matter of law on the record.

## Legal Principles

- Res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence where: (1) the event is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur absent negligence, (2) the instrumentality was within the defendant’s “exclusive control,” and (3) the injury was not due to plaintiff’s voluntary act or contribution.
- “Exclusive control” is applied flexibly; it does not require sole physical control and may be satisfied even when more than one defendant shares responsibility for maintenance and operation of the instrumentality.
- Public use of an instrumentality does not negate “exclusive control” when users do not have responsibility or ability to inspect, repair, or maintain the mechanism alleged to have malfunctioned.
- On summary judgment, defendants bear the initial burden to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; where the record supports a reasonable inference of negligence and disputed facts about maintenance and condition, summary judgment must be denied.

## Conclusion

The court held that an automatic door’s alleged malfunction striking a pedestrian could support a res ipsa loquitur inference and that disputed facts about maintenance history and shared responsibility among the owner and contractors required a jury determination, making summary judgment inappropriate.


Singh v. United Cerebral Palsy of N.Y.C., Inc., 72 A.D.3d 272, 896 N.Y.S.2d 22 (1st Dep’t 2010)