Robles v. 635 Owner, LLC

6 Citing cases

  1. Lagares v. Carrier Terminal Servs.

    204 A.D.3d 1456 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    With respect to notice, Carrier and Speed Motor provided the deposition transcripts of Sahlem's employees, who testified that it was impossible to see the condition of the metal decking until the existing roof was removed. Thus, Carrier and Speed Motor established that they did not have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition (seeRobles v. 635 Owner, LLC , 192 A.D.3d 604, 605, 146 N.Y.S.3d 34 [1st Dept. 2021] ; cf.Giglio v. St. Joseph Intercommunity Hosp. , 309 A.D.2d 1266, 1268, 765 N.Y.S.2d 77 [4th Dept. 2003] ), and Sahlem failed to raise a question of fact. We reject Sahlem's contention that Carrier and Speed Motor failed to establish that Sahlem was either negligent or failed to properly supervise plaintiff.

  2. Quiroz v. N.Y. Presbyterian/Columbia Univ. Med. Ctr.

    No. 2022-00988 (N.Y. App. Div. Feb. 15, 2022)

    NY Presbyterian/Structure Tone's contribution claims against PJ Mechanical also lacked evidentiary support and were properly dismissed. NY Presbyterian/Structure Tone's breach of contract claim should not have been dismissed, because PJ Mechanical failed to establish prima facie that it complied with the parties' agreement that it procure a comprehensive general liability insurance policy, together with any umbrella/excess policies, which afforded at least $5 million coverage per occurrence and aggregate (see generally, Robles v 635 Owner, LLC, 192 A.D.3d 604, 605 [1st Dept 2021]).

  3. Quiroz v. N.Y. Presbyterian/Columbia Univ. Med. Ctr.

    202 A.D.3d 555 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 20 times

    NY Presbyterian/Structure Tone's contribution claims against PJ Mechanical also lacked evidentiary support and were properly dismissed. NY Presbyterian/Structure Tone's breach of contract claim should not have been dismissed, because PJ Mechanical failed to establish prima facie that it complied with the parties’ agreement that it procure a comprehensive general liability insurance policy, together with any umbrella/excess policies, which afforded at least $5 million coverage per occurrence and aggregate (see generally,Robles v. 635 Owner, LLC, 192 A.D.3d 604, 605, 146 N.Y.S.3d 34 [1st Dept. 2021] ).

  4. Lagares v. Carrier Terminal Servs.

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 2729 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    With respect to notice, Carrier and Speed Motor provided the deposition transcripts of Sahlem's employees, who testified that it was impossible to see the condition of the metal decking until the existing roof was removed. Thus, Carrier and Speed Motor established that they did not have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition (see Robles v 635 Owner, LLC, 192 A.D.3d 604, 605 [1st Dept 2021]; cf. Giglio v St. Joseph Intercommunity Hosp., 309 A.D.2d 1266, 1268 [4th Dept 2003]), and Sahlem failed to raise a question of fact. We reject Sahlem's contention that Carrier and Speed Motor failed to establish that Sahlem was either negligent or failed to properly supervise plaintiff.

  5. Quiroz v. N.Y. Presbyterian/Columbia Univ. Med. Ctr.

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 988 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    NY Presbyterian/Structure Tone's contribution claims against PJ Mechanical also lacked evidentiary support and were properly dismissed. NY Presbyterian/Structure Tone's breach of contract claim should not have been dismissed, because PJ Mechanical failed to establish prima facie that it complied with the parties' agreement that it procure a comprehensive general liability insurance policy, together with any umbrella/excess policies, which afforded at least $5 million coverage per occurrence and aggregate (see generally, Robles v 635 Owner, LLC, 192 A.D.3d 604, 605 [1st Dept 2021]).

  6. Volgassov v. Silverstein Props.

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 30078 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    On the other hand, factual issues with respect to the whether the World Trade Center Defendants, Navarro, and Clarkwestern were themselves negligent requires denial of the portions of their respective motions seeking dismissal of the contribution and common-law indemnification claims as against them (see Robles v 635 Owner, LLC, 192 A.D.3d 604, 605 [1st Dept 2021]; State of New York v Defoe Corp., 149 A.D.3d 889, 890 [2d Dept 2017]; Chilinski v LMJ Contr., Inc., 137 A.D.3d 1185, 1187-1188 [2d Dept 2016]; see also Abreu v Rodriguez, 195 A.D.3d 1277, 1279 [3d Dept 2021]; Lam v Sky Realty, Inc., 142 A.D.3d 1137, 1138-1139 [2d Dept 2016]). Similarly, the factual issues with respect to the World Trade Center Defendant's own negligence and as to whether either Navarro or Clarkwestern were negligent requires denial of the portion of the World Trade Center Defendants' seeking summary judgment on its common-law indemnification claims as against them (see McDonnell v Sandaro Realty, Inc., 165 A.D.3d 1090, 1097-1098 [2d Dept 2018]; Shaughnessy v Huntington Hosp. Assn., 147 A.D.3d 994, 999 [2d Dept 2017]; Wahab v Agris & Brenner, LLC, 102 A.D.3d 672, 674-675 [2d Dept 2013]).