Keibel v. Riina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Keibel v. Riina

126 A.D.3d 629, 3 N.Y.S.3d 608

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

DecidedMarch 26, 2015

Docket14759 301989/07

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.3d 629 (Keibel v. Riina) 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

Keibel v. Riina, 126 A.D.3d 629, 3 N.Y.S.3d 608 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered August 23, 2013, which denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motions granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendants complied with the plain wording of Supreme Court’s January 27, 2012 order regarding the timing for renewal of their summary judgment motions. Even if the renewed motions may nevertheless be considered untimely despite the lack of clarity in Supreme Court’s January 27, 2012 order, such lack of clarity constituted the requisite “good cause” for the late filing (see Vila v Cablevision of NYC, 28 AD3d 248, 249 [1st Dept 2006]; CPLR 3212 [a]).

Turning to the merits, defendants were entitled to summary judgment. The duties that defendant Louis Riina owed the injured plaintiff, as either owner or vice president of Gun Hill Tile, Inc. doing business as Gen Tile, to maintain the premises safely are indistinguishable from the duties he owed as owner of the property (see Macchirole v Giamboi, 97 NY2d 147, 150 [2001]; Concepcion v Diamond, 224 AD2d 189, 189-190 [1st Dept 1996]). Thus, plaintiffs’ claims against him are barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6).

Defendant 1047 East Gun Hill Realty Corp. established prima facie that it did not own, occupy, possess, manage, maintain or control the premises. In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in this regard.

Concur — Tom, J.R, Sweeny, Renwick and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered August 23, 2013, which denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motions granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendants complied with the plain wording of Supreme Court’s January 27, 2012 order regarding the timing for renewal of their summary judgment motions. Even if the renewed motions may nevertheless be considered untimely despite the lack of clarity in Supreme Court’s January 27, 2012 order, such lack of clarity constituted the requisite “good cause” for the late filing (see Vila v Cablevision of NYC, 28 AD3d 248, 249 [1st Dept 2006]; CPLR 3212 [a]).

Turning to the merits, defendants were entitled to summary judgment. The duties that defendant Louis Riina owed the injured plaintiff, as either owner or vice president of Gun Hill Tile, Inc. doing business as Gen Tile, to maintain the premises safely are indistinguishable from the duties he owed as owner of the property (see Macchirole v Giamboi, 97 NY2d 147, 150 [2001]; Concepcion v Diamond, 224 AD2d 189, 189-190 [1st Dept 1996]). Thus, plaintiffs’ claims against him are barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6).

Defendant 1047 East Gun Hill Realty Corp. established prima facie that it did not own, occupy, possess, manage, maintain or control the premises. In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in this regard.

Concur — Tom, J.R, Sweeny, Renwick and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 629, 3 N.Y.S.3d 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keibel-v-riina-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack