Torres v. Merrill Lynch Purchasing

95 A.D.3d 741, 945 N.Y.S.2d 78
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 29, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 95 A.D.3d 741 (Torres v. Merrill Lynch Purchasing) 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
Torres v. Merrill Lynch Purchasing, 95 A.D.3d 741, 945 N.Y.S.2d 78 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered July 15, 2011, which, inter alia, denied Merrill Lynch/ WFC/L motion for summary judgment on its indemnification [742]*742claim against Commerzbank, granted ABM Janitorial’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, denied Colliers’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, denied Colliers’ motion to amend its answer to assert a cross claim for indemnification against Commerzbank and for summary judgment thereon, denied ABM Engineering’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it and denied ABM Janitorial’s and ABM Engineering’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Merrill Lynch’s and Colliers’ cross claims for indemnification against them, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny ABM Janitorial’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Colliers’ and ABM Engineering’s motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them were properly denied because they merely pointed to gaps in plaintiffs proof instead of carrying their burdens on their motions (see Alvarez v 21st Century Renovations Ltd., 66 AD3d 524, 525 [2009]).

However, the janitorial contract gave ABM Janitorial exclusive control over cleaning in the area where plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell, which was sufficient to impose upon it a duty of care toward the noncontracting plaintiff (see Riley v ISS Intl. Serv. Sys., 5 AD3d 754, 756-757 [2004]). There were issues of fact as to defendants’ notice of the condition on the day of the alleged accident.

The court properly interpreted the lease indemnification provisions in finding that the obligation thereunder did not extend to the common area ladies’ bathroom where plaintiff was allegedly injured.

We have considered the parties’ other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Ren wick, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Related

McKnight v. New York City Tr. Auth.
2024 NY Slip Op 32431(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Powell v. City of New York
2023 NY Slip Op 03843 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
S. G. v. Harlem Vil. Academy Charter Sch.
2023 NY Slip Op 01069 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Nestenborg v. Standard Intl. Mgt. LLC
2021 NY Slip Op 01144 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Kolakowski v. 10839 Assoc.
2020 NY Slip Op 3742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Nassar v. Macy's Inc.
2020 NY Slip Op 2160 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Harvey v. Henry 85 LLC
2019 NY Slip Op 7210 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Belgium v. Mateo Productions, Inc.
138 A.D.3d 479 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
McCullough v. One Bryant Park
132 A.D.3d 491 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 A.D.3d 741, 945 N.Y.S.2d 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-merrill-lynch-purchasing-nyappdiv-2012.