Hernandez v. East Boy, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hernandez v. East Boy, Inc.

104 A.D.3d 435, 960 N.Y.S.2d 305

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

DecidedMarch 7, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 104 A.D.3d 435 (Hernandez v. East Boy, 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

Hernandez v. East Boy, Inc., 104 A.D.3d 435, 960 N.Y.S.2d 305 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered August 10, 2012, which denied defendant/third-party plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and on its claim for indemnification against third-party defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Conflicting testimony raises an issue of fact whether, despite the terms of the lease, defendant retained or assumed responsibility for maintaining the premises and can be held liable for plaintiffs injuries (see Colon v Mandelbaum, 244 AD2d 292 [1st Dept 1997]). In light of the unresolved issue of its negligence, defendant is not entitled to indemnification (see Delgiudice u Papanicolaou, 5 AD3d 236 [1st Dept 2004]; Tormey v City of New York, 302 AD2d 277, 278 [1st Dept 2003]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Acosta, Freedman and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered August 10, 2012, which denied defendant/third-party plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and on its claim for indemnification against third-party defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Conflicting testimony raises an issue of fact whether, despite the terms of the lease, defendant retained or assumed responsibility for maintaining the premises and can be held liable for plaintiffs injuries (see Colon v Mandelbaum, 244 AD2d 292 [1st Dept 1997]). In light of the unresolved issue of its negligence, defendant is not entitled to indemnification (see Delgiudice u Papanicolaou, 5 AD3d 236 [1st Dept 2004]; Tormey v City of New York, 302 AD2d 277, 278 [1st Dept 2003]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Acosta, Freedman and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.3d 435, 960 N.Y.S.2d 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-east-boy-inc-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack