From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Berra v. CHSP 36th St. LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 19, 2019
178 A.D.3d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

10614N Index 22534/13E

12-19-2019

Ydalgo BERRA, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. CHSP 36TH STREET LLC, et al., Defendants–Appellants, Rotavele Elevator, Inc., Defendant–Appellant–Respondent.

Cartafalsa, Turpin & Lenoff, New York (Christopher J. Turpin, Pearl River, of counsel), for appellants. Gottlieb Siegel & Schwartz, LLP, New York (Laura R. McKenzie of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Louis Grandelli, P.C., New York (Ari R. Lieberman of counsel), for respondent.


Cartafalsa, Turpin & Lenoff, New York (Christopher J. Turpin, Pearl River, of counsel), for appellants.

Gottlieb Siegel & Schwartz, LLP, New York (Laura R. McKenzie of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Louis Grandelli, P.C., New York (Ari R. Lieberman of counsel), for respondent.

Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Manzanet–Daniels, Kapnick, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), entered January 10, 2019, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion of defendants CHSP 36th Street LLC and Hyatt Hotel Corporation (collectively CHSP) for conditional summary judgment on their cross claim for contractual defense and indemnification against defendant Rotavele Elevator, Inc. (Rotavelle), and granted plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, CHSP's motion granted and plaintiff's cross motion denied.

The opinion of Rotavele's expert engineer, based on his inspection of the elevator, that the mechanical design of the elevator would make it impossible for the elevator car to free-fall or even speed up, raised questions of fact as to whether the accident occurred as plaintiff alleges and whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies here (see Morejon v. Rais Constr. Co. , 7 N.Y.3d 203, 209, 818 N.Y.S.2d 792, 851 N.E.2d 1143 [2006] ).

Furthermore, given the clear and unmistakeable terms of the elevator service agreement between CHSP and Rotavele, CHSP was entitled to conditional summary judgment on its claim for a defense and indemnification notwithstanding any possible negligence on its part in the cause of plaintiff's alleged injuries (see Antoniak v. P.S. Marcato El. Co., Inc. , 144 A.D.3d 407, 40 N.Y.S.3d 112 [1st Dept. 2016] ; see also Giancola v. Yale Club of N.Y. City , 168 A.D.3d 539, 90 N.Y.S.3d 526 [1st Dept. 2019] ).


Summaries of

Berra v. CHSP 36th St. LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 19, 2019
178 A.D.3d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Berra v. CHSP 36th St. LLC

Case Details

Full title:Ydalgo Berra, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHSP 36th Street LLC, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 19, 2019

Citations

178 A.D.3d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 9097
112 N.Y.S.3d 491