Suarez v. JPMorgan Chase Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Suarez v. JPMorgan Chase Bank

128 A.D.3d 500, 9 N.Y.S.3d 245

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

DecidedMay 14, 2015

Docket301377/11 15117A 15117

StatusPublished

This text of 128 A.D.3d 500 (Suarez v. JPMorgan Chase Bank) 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

Suarez v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 128 A.D.3d 500, 9 N.Y.S.3d 245 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered February 27, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon renewal, denied defendant McGuire’s Service Corp.’s (McGuire’s) motion for summary judgment and reinstated the complaint as against it, and otherwise adhered to the prior order, same court and Justice, entered July 15, 2013, denying defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank’s (JPMC) motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint as against it and judgment on its cross claims for indemnification against McGuire’s, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the July 15, 2013 order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

In this action for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff Hilton O. Suarez when he slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot of JPMC’s bank branch located on East Tremont Avenue in the Bronx, there are questions of fact precluding an award of summary judgment to defendant McGuire’s, the snow removal contractor. Specifically, there is an issue of fact as to whether McGuire’s entirely displaced JPMC’s obligation to maintain the premises safely (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]). Although the snow removal contract uses broad language suggesting that McGuire’s “entirely absorb [ed]” JPMC’s duty, there is evidence in the record that JPMC retained control over the snow removal services by directing McGuire to stop using sand on the icy parking lot and to remove piles of snow from the premises (Espinal, 98 NY2d at 140-141).

*501 We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Saxe, Richter and Gische, 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 February 27, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon renewal, denied defendant McGuire’s Service Corp.’s (McGuire’s) motion for summary judgment and reinstated the complaint as against it, and otherwise adhered to the prior order, same court and Justice, entered July 15, 2013, denying defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank’s (JPMC) motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint as against it and judgment on its cross claims for indemnification against McGuire’s, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the July 15, 2013 order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

In this action for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff Hilton O. Suarez when he slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot of JPMC’s bank branch located on East Tremont Avenue in the Bronx, there are questions of fact precluding an award of summary judgment to defendant McGuire’s, the snow removal contractor. Specifically, there is an issue of fact as to whether McGuire’s entirely displaced JPMC’s obligation to maintain the premises safely (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]). Although the snow removal contract uses broad language suggesting that McGuire’s “entirely absorb [ed]” JPMC’s duty, there is evidence in the record that JPMC retained control over the snow removal services by directing McGuire to stop using sand on the icy parking lot and to remove piles of snow from the premises (Espinal, 98 NY2d at 140-141).

*501 We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Saxe, Richter and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 500, 9 N.Y.S.3d 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suarez-v-jpmorgan-chase-bank-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack