Souare v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Souare v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

125 A.D.3d 494, 4 N.Y.S.3d 173

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 2015

Docket14230 309839/09

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 125 A.D.3d 494 (Souare v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey) 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

Souare v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 125 A.D.3d 494, 4 N.Y.S.3d 173 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered April 15, 2013, which granted defendants’ motions to *495 reargue, and upon rearguxnent, granted defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s motion for summary judgment on its cross claim against defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. for breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, and denied Greyhound’s motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnification cross claims, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the Port Authority’s motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract cross claim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In this premises liability action, the motion court correctly denied both defendants’ motions as to contractual indemnification on the ground that it was unable to determine which entity controlled the location where plaintiff fell. Although the Space and Services Agreement provided that the Port Authority would provide general maintenance for the terminal, the Bus Carrier License Agreement obligated Greyhound to indemnify the Port Authority for all third-party claims arising out of its use of the space defined as the area where passengers loaded, and to “take the precautions at the gates and platforms adjacent to the Space reasonably necessary to assure the safety of its passengers and other persons” (see Rubin v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 49 AD3d 422, 422 [1st Dept 2008]).

The motion court also correctly held that the Bus Carrier License Agreement between the Port Authority and Greyhound required Greyhound to procure insurance covering the Port Authority for all liabilities arising out of Greyhound’s use of the “Space” under that agreement; that Greyhound failed to provide evidence (a certificate of insurance) demonstrating compliance with its contractual requirements; and that Greyhound therefore breached the contract (see Bachrow v Turner Constr. Corp., 46 AD3d 388, 388 [1st Dept 2007]). Accordingly, the Port Authority is entitled to recover any losses caused by this breach of contract (see id.). Nevertheless, the motion court’s grant of summary judgment was premature, as it has yet to be determined that Greyhound’s failure to procure the agreed-upon insurance caused the Port Authority any losses (see id.).

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Acosta, Saxe, ManzanetDaniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered April 15, 2013, which granted defendants’ motions to *495 reargue, and upon rearguxnent, granted defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s motion for summary judgment on its cross claim against defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. for breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, and denied Greyhound’s motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnification cross claims, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the Port Authority’s motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract cross claim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In this premises liability action, the motion court correctly denied both defendants’ motions as to contractual indemnification on the ground that it was unable to determine which entity controlled the location where plaintiff fell. Although the Space and Services Agreement provided that the Port Authority would provide general maintenance for the terminal, the Bus Carrier License Agreement obligated Greyhound to indemnify the Port Authority for all third-party claims arising out of its use of the space defined as the area where passengers loaded, and to “take the precautions at the gates and platforms adjacent to the Space reasonably necessary to assure the safety of its passengers and other persons” (see Rubin v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 49 AD3d 422, 422 [1st Dept 2008]).

The motion court also correctly held that the Bus Carrier License Agreement between the Port Authority and Greyhound required Greyhound to procure insurance covering the Port Authority for all liabilities arising out of Greyhound’s use of the “Space” under that agreement; that Greyhound failed to provide evidence (a certificate of insurance) demonstrating compliance with its contractual requirements; and that Greyhound therefore breached the contract (see Bachrow v Turner Constr. Corp., 46 AD3d 388, 388 [1st Dept 2007]). Accordingly, the Port Authority is entitled to recover any losses caused by this breach of contract (see id.). Nevertheless, the motion court’s grant of summary judgment was premature, as it has yet to be determined that Greyhound’s failure to procure the agreed-upon insurance caused the Port Authority any losses (see id.).

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Acosta, Saxe, ManzanetDaniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.3d 494, 4 N.Y.S.3d 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/souare-v-port-authority-of-new-york-new-jersey-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack