Davitt v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davitt v. City of New York

40 A.D.3d 908, 836 N.Y.S.2d 651

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

DecidedMay 22, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.3d 908 (Davitt v. City of New York) 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

Davitt v. City of New York, 40 A.D.3d 908, 836 N.Y.S.2d 651 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants City of New York, New York City Transit Authority, and American Bridge Company appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J), dated February 27, 2006, which denied their motion for summary judgment on their cross claim for contractual indemnification against the defendant M.A.C.C. Construction, Inc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when he stepped on a piece of plywood covering a portion of a sidewalk that had been excavated in connection with the ongoing repair of columns supporting an elevated subway line above the sidewalk. The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment on their cross claim for contractual indemnification against the defendant subcontractor M.A.C.C. Construction, Inc., because they failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the appellant American Bridge Company, the general contractor, was free from negligence (see Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 786, 795 [1997]; Coque v Wildflower Estates Devs., Inc., 31 AD3d 484, 489-490 [2006]; Watters v R.D. Branch Assoc., LP, 30 AD3d 408, 409-410 [2006]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants City of New York, New York City Transit Authority, and American Bridge Company appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J), dated February 27, 2006, which denied their motion for summary judgment on their cross claim for contractual indemnification against the defendant M.A.C.C. Construction, Inc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when he stepped on a piece of plywood covering a portion of a sidewalk that had been excavated in connection with the ongoing repair of columns supporting an elevated subway line above the sidewalk. The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment on their cross claim for contractual indemnification against the defendant subcontractor M.A.C.C. Construction, Inc., because they failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the appellant American Bridge Company, the general contractor, was free from negligence (see Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 786, 795 [1997]; Coque v Wildflower Estates Devs., Inc., 31 AD3d 484, 489-490 [2006]; Watters v R.D. Branch Assoc., LP, 30 AD3d 408, 409-410 [2006]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 908, 836 N.Y.S.2d 651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davitt-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack