Heredia v. 1454 St. Nicholas Avenue Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Heredia v. 1454 St. Nicholas Avenue Associates

125 A.D.3d 550, 5 N.Y.S.3d 23

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2015

Docket18896/07 14318 83767/11 14317

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A.D.3d 550 (Heredia v. 1454 St. Nicholas Avenue Associates) 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

Heredia v. 1454 St. Nicholas Avenue Associates, 125 A.D.3d 550, 5 N.Y.S.3d 23 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered July 15, 2013, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted third-party defendant tenant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification for amounts that defendant/third-party plaintiff 1454 St. Nicholas Avenue Associates (owner) recovers from insurance, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered April 14, 2014, which, insofar as appealable, denied defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ motion for renewal of the July 15, 2013 order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Plaintiff, an employee of tenant, was allegedly injured on premises leased from the owner. Paragraph 46 of the rider to the lease unambiguously requires, inter alia, that “tenant shall indemnify owner for, and hold owner harmless and free from damages sustained by person or property.” Even if we were to agree with tenant’s contention that paragraph 46 to the rider was ambiguous, the remedy would not be to render it a nullity as tenant urges, but to admit extrinsic evidence to determine its meaning. In either event, tenant’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered July 15, 2013, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted third-party defendant tenant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification for amounts that defendant/third-party plaintiff 1454 St. Nicholas Avenue Associates (owner) recovers from insurance, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered April 14, 2014, which, insofar as appealable, denied defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ motion for renewal of the July 15, 2013 order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Plaintiff, an employee of tenant, was allegedly injured on premises leased from the owner. Paragraph 46 of the rider to the lease unambiguously requires, inter alia, that “tenant shall indemnify owner for, and hold owner harmless and free from damages sustained by person or property.” Even if we were to agree with tenant’s contention that paragraph 46 to the rider was ambiguous, the remedy would not be to render it a nullity as tenant urges, but to admit extrinsic evidence to determine its meaning. In either event, tenant’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.3d 550, 5 N.Y.S.3d 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heredia-v-1454-st-nicholas-avenue-associates-nyappdiv-2015.