From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sandoval v. Trump Plaza Owners, Inc.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Jul 24, 2019
174 A.D.3d 830 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

2017-01863 Index No. 703255/15

07-24-2019

Ramon Nicholas SANDOVAL, Plaintiff, v. TRUMP PLAZA OWNERS, INC., et al., Respondents, Peter Katsihtis, appellant, et al., Defendants (and third-Party actions).

Baxter Smith & Shapiro, P.C., Hicksville, N.Y. (Dennis S. Heffernan of counsel), for appellant. Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Paul M. Tarr of counsel), for respondents.


Baxter Smith & Shapiro, P.C., Hicksville, N.Y. (Dennis S. Heffernan of counsel), for appellant.

Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Paul M. Tarr of counsel), for respondents.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, the defendants Trump Plaza Owners, Inc., and Trump Plaza, LLC (hereinafter together the respondents), and the defendant Peter Katsihtis (hereinafter the appellant) to recover damages for personal injuries the plaintiff allegedly sustained while he was performing construction work at a building in Manhattan during the course of his employment with Arcon Construction Group (hereinafter Arcon). The appellant leased space in the building and hired Arcon. In their fourth cross claim, the respondents alleged that the appellant breached his contractual obligation to procure insurance for their benefit.

We agree with the Supreme Court's determination granting that branch of the respondents' motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on their fourth cross claim against the appellant. The respondents established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the subject lease required the appellant to obtain insurance naming them as additional insureds and that the appellant failed to do so. In opposition, the appellant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see DiBuono v. Abbey, LLC, 83 A.D.3d 650, 922 N.Y.S.2d 101 ; Town of Hempstead v. East Coast Resource Group, LLC, 67 A.D.3d 777, 889 N.Y.S.2d 88 ; Chaehee Jung v. Kum Gang, Inc., 22 A.D.3d 441, 806 N.Y.S.2d 62 ).

BALKIN, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, MALTESE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sandoval v. Trump Plaza Owners, Inc.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Jul 24, 2019
174 A.D.3d 830 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Sandoval v. Trump Plaza Owners, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Ramon Nicholas Sandoval, plaintiff, v. Trump Plaza Owners, Inc., et al.…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Jul 24, 2019

Citations

174 A.D.3d 830 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
174 A.D.3d 830
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 5803