Auliano v. 145 East 15th Street Tenants Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Auliano v. 145 East 15th Street Tenants Corp.

129 A.D.3d 469, 11 N.Y.S.3d 50

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 9, 2015

Docket15348 114265/11

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 129 A.D.3d 469 (Auliano v. 145 East 15th Street Tenants Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Auliano v. 145 East 15th Street Tenants Corp., 129 A.D.3d 469, 11 N.Y.S.3d 50 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered November 5, 2014, which, among other things, denied defendants 145 East 15th Street Tenants Corp. and Orsid Realty Corp.’s (collectively 145 East) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on their cross claim for contractual indemnification against defendant Master Renovation, Inc., unanimously modified, on the law, to grant 145 East *470 conditional summary judgment on the contractual indemnification claim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly denied 145’s motion, and Master’s cross motion, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Issues of fact exist as to whether the condition that allegedly caused plaintiff Phyllis Auliano’s fall was open and obvious, given, among other things, plaintiff’s testimony that the area was “dim,” the colored photographs of the area showing that a window was covered with heavy latticework, and the lack of any handrails or guardrails, which may have alerted plaintiff to a potentially dangerous condition (see Westbrook v WR Activities-Cabrera Mkts., 5 AD3d 69, 70-72 [1st Dept 2004]; see also Thornhill v Toys “R” Us NYTEX, 183 AD2d 1071, 1073 [3d Dept 1992]). The evidence also raises issues of fact as to whether defendants breached their common-law duty to maintain the area in a reasonably safe condition by failing to provide adequate lighting, barriers, warnings, handrails or guardrails (see Westbrook, 5 AD3d at 72-75). Further, there are issues of fact as to whether defendants violated Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-381 (requiring adequate illumination), and whether Master violated former Administrative Code § 27-1009 (a) (amended and renumbered as section 3301.2 [eff July 1, 2008]) (requiring contractors to provide and maintain safety measures).

145 East is entitled to conditional summary judgment on its cross claim for contractual indemnification against Master, given the broad indemnification clause in the contract between the parties, which does not purport to indemnify 145 East for its own negligence, and given that issues of fact exist as to 145 East’s negligence (see Johnson v Chelsea Grand E., LLC, 124 AD3d 542 [1st Dept 2015]; DeSimone v City of New York, 121 AD3d 420, 422-423 [1st Dept 2014]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered November 5, 2014, which, among other things, denied defendants 145 East 15th Street Tenants Corp. and Orsid Realty Corp.’s (collectively 145 East) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on their cross claim for contractual indemnification against defendant Master Renovation, Inc., unanimously modified, on the law, to grant 145 East *470 conditional summary judgment on the contractual indemnification claim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly denied 145’s motion, and Master’s cross motion, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Issues of fact exist as to whether the condition that allegedly caused plaintiff Phyllis Auliano’s fall was open and obvious, given, among other things, plaintiff’s testimony that the area was “dim,” the colored photographs of the area showing that a window was covered with heavy latticework, and the lack of any handrails or guardrails, which may have alerted plaintiff to a potentially dangerous condition (see Westbrook v WR Activities-Cabrera Mkts., 5 AD3d 69, 70-72 [1st Dept 2004]; see also Thornhill v Toys “R” Us NYTEX, 183 AD2d 1071, 1073 [3d Dept 1992]). The evidence also raises issues of fact as to whether defendants breached their common-law duty to maintain the area in a reasonably safe condition by failing to provide adequate lighting, barriers, warnings, handrails or guardrails (see Westbrook, 5 AD3d at 72-75). Further, there are issues of fact as to whether defendants violated Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-381 (requiring adequate illumination), and whether Master violated former Administrative Code § 27-1009 (a) (amended and renumbered as section 3301.2 [eff July 1, 2008]) (requiring contractors to provide and maintain safety measures).

145 East is entitled to conditional summary judgment on its cross claim for contractual indemnification against Master, given the broad indemnification clause in the contract between the parties, which does not purport to indemnify 145 East for its own negligence, and given that issues of fact exist as to 145 East’s negligence (see Johnson v Chelsea Grand E., LLC, 124 AD3d 542 [1st Dept 2015]; DeSimone v City of New York, 121 AD3d 420, 422-423 [1st Dept 2014]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.3d 469, 11 N.Y.S.3d 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/auliano-v-145-east-15th-street-tenants-corp-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack