Torres v. Visto Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Torres v. Visto Realty Corp.

106 A.D.3d 645, 965 N.Y.S.2d 721

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

DecidedMay 28, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.3d 645 (Torres v. Visto Realty Corp.) 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. Visto Realty Corp., 106 A.D.3d 645, 965 N.Y.S.2d 721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered on or about June 6, 2012, which granted third-party defendant’s motion to sever the third-party action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since the main action involves the factual issue whether there was a defect in the sidewalk that contributed to plaintiffs injury, and the third-party action involves lease contract issues such as indemnification, and plaintiff, who has filed a note of issue, would be prejudiced by the delay caused by the need for discovery in the third-party action, severance of the third-party action was appropriate (see CPLR 1010; Garcia v Gesher Realty Corp., 280 AD2d 440 [1st Dept 2001]).

We reject defendant/third-party plaintiff landowner’s argument, pursuant to CPLR 1001 (b) (2) and (5), that third-party defendant tenant is a necessary party to the main action. Plaintiffs cause of action is grounded in Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210, which imposes on the owner of property abutting a sidewalk a nondelegable duty to maintain [646]*646the sidewalk in reasonably safe condition (see e.g. Collado v Cruz, 81 AD3d 542 [1st Dept 2011]). The provisions of the tenant’s lease obligating it to repair the sidewalk could not be enforced through the main action (id.). Concur—Acosta, J.E, Renwick, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered on or about June 6, 2012, which granted third-party defendant’s motion to sever the third-party action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since the main action involves the factual issue whether there was a defect in the sidewalk that contributed to plaintiffs injury, and the third-party action involves lease contract issues such as indemnification, and plaintiff, who has filed a note of issue, would be prejudiced by the delay caused by the need for discovery in the third-party action, severance of the third-party action was appropriate (see CPLR 1010; Garcia v Gesher Realty Corp., 280 AD2d 440 [1st Dept 2001]).

We reject defendant/third-party plaintiff landowner’s argument, pursuant to CPLR 1001 (b) (2) and (5), that third-party defendant tenant is a necessary party to the main action. Plaintiffs cause of action is grounded in Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210, which imposes on the owner of property abutting a sidewalk a nondelegable duty to maintain [646]*646the sidewalk in reasonably safe condition (see e.g. Collado v Cruz, 81 AD3d 542 [1st Dept 2011]). The provisions of the tenant’s lease obligating it to repair the sidewalk could not be enforced through the main action (id.). Concur—Acosta, J.E, Renwick, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.3d 645, 965 N.Y.S.2d 721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-visto-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack