Opinion
2013-01-30
John PALOMEQUE, et al., plaintiffs, v. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SERVICES, LLC, defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent, et al., defendant; Konsker Electric Corp., third-party defendant-appellant.
James R. Pieret, Garden City, N.Y. (Joseph J. Rava of counsel), for third-party defendant-appellant. Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, New York, N.Y. (Francis A. Garufi of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent.
James R. Pieret, Garden City, N.Y. (Joseph J. Rava of counsel), for third-party defendant-appellant. Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, New York, N.Y. (Francis A. Garufi of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Iannacci, J.), entered December 12, 2011, which granted the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff for summary judgment on its second cause of action in the third-party complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant third-party plaintiff, Capital Improvement Services, LLC (hereinafter Capital), established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its second cause of action in the third-party complaint, which sought contractual indemnification. Capital tendered the subcontract agreement, which provided for indemnification by the third-party defendant against liability for the underlying accident, and demonstrated that it was free from negligence in the happening of this accident ( see Quilliams v. Half Hollow Hills School Dist. [ Candlewood School ], 67 A.D.3d 763, 892 N.Y.S.2d 397;George v. Marshalls of MA, Inc., 61 A.D.3d 931, 878 N.Y.S.2d 164). In opposition thereto, the third-party defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted Capital's motion for summary judgment on its second cause of action in the third-party complaint ( see Roldan v. New York Univ., 81 A.D.3d 625, 629, 916 N.Y.S.2d 162;see also Brown v. Two Exch. Plaza Partners, 76 N.Y.2d 172, 556 N.Y.S.2d 991, 556 N.E.2d 430;see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572).
The third-party defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.