NATICHA RUIZ-HERNANDEZ, plf-res, v. TPE NWI GENERAL, Defendant-Appellant-res

10201. NATICHA RUIZ-HERNANDEZ, plf-res, v. TPE NWI GENERAL, Defendant-Appellant-res — TPE NWI GENERAL, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant-res, v. GUARDSMAN ELEVATOR CO., INC., Third-Party Defendant-resres — Armienti, DeBellis, Guglielmo & Rhoden, LLP, New York (Vanessa M. Corchia of counsel), for appellant-res — Kral Clerkin Redmond Ryan Perry & Van Etten, LLP, New York (Joseph C. Bellard of counsel), for res-res — Pazer, Epstein & Jaffe, P.C., New York (Matthew J. Fein of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered April 19, 2012, which denied the motion of defendant-third-party plaintiff TPE NWI General (General) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied the motion of third-party defendant Guardsman Elevator Co., Inc. (Guardsman) for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, Guardsman's motion granted to the extent that it sought dismissal of General's thirdparty claim for contractual indemnification, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

10201. NATICHA RUIZ-HERNANDEZ, plf-res, v. TPE NWI GENERAL, Defendant-Appellant-res — TPE NWI GENERAL, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant-res, v. GUARDSMAN ELEVATOR CO., INC., Third-Party Defendant-resres — Armienti, DeBellis, Guglielmo & Rhoden, LLP, New York (Vanessa M. Corchia of counsel), for appellant-res — Kral Clerkin Redmond Ryan Perry & Van Etten, LLP, New York (Joseph C. Bellard of counsel), for res-res — Pazer, Epstein & Jaffe, P.C., New York (Matthew J. Fein of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered April 19, 2012, which denied the motion of defendant-third-party plaintiff TPE NWI General (General) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied the motion of third-party defendant Guardsman Elevator Co., Inc. (Guardsman) for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, Guardsman’s motion granted to the extent that it sought dismissal of General’s thirdparty claim for contractual indemnification, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Triable issues of fact exist as to whether General, the building’s owner, and Guardsman, the elevator maintenance contractor, had notice of the defective mechanism that allegedly caused the elevator to malfunction. Guardsman’s “Trouble Site Report” indicates that on May 16, 2007, it installed a new IP-8300 relay, the “landing control system,” and replaced that component on May 31, 2007, less than one month before plaintiff’s accident. The installation and replacement of this component within the weeks immediately preceding plaintiff’s accident, raises a triable issue as to whether Guardsman had notice of the defective condition, and such knowledge is imputable to General as the premises’ owner (see Dabbagh v. Newmark Knight Frank Global Mgt. Servs., LLC, 99 AD3d 448, 450 [1st Dept 2012]).

NATICHA RUIZ-HERNANDEZ, plf-res, v. TPE NWI GENERAL, Defendant-Appellant-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal