Bala v. Target Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bala v. Target Corp.

63 A.D.3d 518, 881 N.Y.S.2d 412

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

DecidedJune 16, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 518 (Bala v. Target 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

Bala v. Target Corp., 63 A.D.3d 518, 881 N.Y.S.2d 412 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered April 8, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, as limited by the briefs, granted defendants Macy’s East (Macy’s) and Ibex Construction, LLC’s (IBEX) motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly determined thát Macy’s, the owner of the property, hired an independent contractor to perform the work at issue and was not, as a matter of law, liable for the negligent act, if any, of its independent contractor (see e.g. Fischer v Battery Bldg. Maintenance Co., 135 AD2d 378, 379 [1987]). The contentions cited by plaintiff in opposition are unavailing. The hazardous condition did not exist long enough for Macy’s to have had actual or constructive notice of it. Moreover, the record does not indicate that Macy’s was aware of a dangerous or deteriorating condition requiring it to inspect the premises (see Hayes v Riverbend Hous. Co., Inc., 40 AD3d 500 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 809 [2007]).

[519]*519Insofar as plaintiff claims that the action against IBEX should not be barred by the statute of limitations through application of the relation back doctrine, plaintiff has not adduced any evidence to show a unity of interest between Macy’s and IBEX such that Macy’s would be vicariously liable for the acts of IBEX (see e.g. Raschel v Risk, 69 NY2d 694, 697 [1986]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered April 8, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, as limited by the briefs, granted defendants Macy’s East (Macy’s) and Ibex Construction, LLC’s (IBEX) motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly determined thát Macy’s, the owner of the property, hired an independent contractor to perform the work at issue and was not, as a matter of law, liable for the negligent act, if any, of its independent contractor (see e.g. Fischer v Battery Bldg. Maintenance Co., 135 AD2d 378, 379 [1987]). The contentions cited by plaintiff in opposition are unavailing. The hazardous condition did not exist long enough for Macy’s to have had actual or constructive notice of it. Moreover, the record does not indicate that Macy’s was aware of a dangerous or deteriorating condition requiring it to inspect the premises (see Hayes v Riverbend Hous. Co., Inc., 40 AD3d 500 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 809 [2007]).

[519]*519Insofar as plaintiff claims that the action against IBEX should not be barred by the statute of limitations through application of the relation back doctrine, plaintiff has not adduced any evidence to show a unity of interest between Macy’s and IBEX such that Macy’s would be vicariously liable for the acts of IBEX (see e.g. Raschel v Risk, 69 NY2d 694, 697 [1986]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 518, 881 N.Y.S.2d 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bala-v-target-corp-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack