Garcia v. Pepsico, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garcia v. Pepsico, Inc.

303 A.D.2d 227, 755 N.Y.S.2d 605, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2515

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 227 (Garcia v. Pepsico, Inc.) 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

Garcia v. Pepsico, Inc., 303 A.D.2d 227, 755 N.Y.S.2d 605, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2515 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about September 26, 2002, which denied the motion of second third-party defendant Andy Lopes Building Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the second third-party complaint and all cross claims against it and the cross motion of third-party defendant Sentrale Contracting Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint and all cross claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court properly denied the motion and cross motion for summary judgment. Andy Lopes Building failed to establish, as a matter of law, that it was not negligent in securing the plywood form over the hole into which plaintiff is alleged to have fallen. Sentrale Contracting failed to establish, as a matter of law, that it was not responsible for directing or controlling the work performed by its subcontractor Andy Lopes Building (see Rodriguez v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 234 AD2d 156 [1996]; cf., Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 295 AD2d 723, 724-725 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 614 [2002]; Tambasco v Norton Co., 207 AD2d 618 [1994], lv dismissed 85 NY2d 857 [1995]) and that the written indemnity/insurance procurement agreement produced by third-party plaintiff HRH Construction Corporation in opposition was not applicable. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about September 26, 2002, which denied the motion of second third-party defendant Andy Lopes Building Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the second third-party complaint and all cross claims against it and the cross motion of third-party defendant Sentrale Contracting Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint and all cross claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court properly denied the motion and cross motion for summary judgment. Andy Lopes Building failed to establish, as a matter of law, that it was not negligent in securing the plywood form over the hole into which plaintiff is alleged to have fallen. Sentrale Contracting failed to establish, as a matter of law, that it was not responsible for directing or controlling the work performed by its subcontractor Andy Lopes Building (see Rodriguez v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 234 AD2d 156 [1996]; cf., Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 295 AD2d 723, 724-725 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 614 [2002]; Tambasco v Norton Co., 207 AD2d 618 [1994], lv dismissed 85 NY2d 857 [1995]) and that the written indemnity/insurance procurement agreement produced by third-party plaintiff HRH Construction Corporation in opposition was not applicable. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 227, 755 N.Y.S.2d 605, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-v-pepsico-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack