Bhanmattie Rajkumar Kumar v. PI Assocs., LLC
| Decision Date | 04 February 2015 |
| Citation | 125 A.D.3d 609,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 00849,3 N.Y.S.3d 372 |
| Parties | BHANMATTIE RAJKUMAR KUMAR, plaintiff-respondent, v. PI ASSOCIATES, LLC, appellant, Pretty Girl, defendant-respondent, Capital One Bank, defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
125 A.D.3d 609
3 N.Y.S.3d 372
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 00849
BHANMATTIE RAJKUMAR KUMAR, plaintiff-respondent
v.
PI ASSOCIATES, LLC, appellant
Pretty Girl, defendant-respondent
Capital One Bank, defendant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb. 4, 2015.
Hannum Feretic Prendergast & Merlino, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Sean M. Prendergast of counsel), for appellant.
Chopra & Nocerino, LLP (Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York, N.Y., of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger (Gannon, Rosenfarb, Balletti & Drossman, New York, N.Y. [Lisa L. Gokhulsingh ], of counsel), for defendant-respondent.
Andrea G. Sawyers, Melville, N.Y. (Scott W. Driver of counsel), for defendant Capital One Bank.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant PI Associates, LLC, appeals (1), by permission, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Greco, Jr., J.), entered February 20, 2014, as denied its motion to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of liability as inconsistent and for a new trial, and (2) from an order of the same court entered June 5, 2014, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) for judgment as a matter of law on its cross claim against Pretty Girl for contractual indemnification, granted the cross motion of the defendant Pretty Girl, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against it on the issue of liability and for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and, sua sponte, directed that the defendant PI Associates, LLC, was 90% at fault in the happening of the accident.
ORDERED that the order entered February 20, 2014, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial on the issue of liability; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order entered June 5, 2014, as granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Pretty Girl which was for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it is dismissed, as the defendant PI Associates, LLC, is not aggrieved by that portion of the order (see CPLR 5511 ; Mixon v. TBV, Inc., 76 A.D.3d 144, 904 N.Y.S.2d 132 ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order entered June 5, 2014, as, sua sponte, directed that the defendant PI Associates, LLC, is 90% at fault is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order entered June 5, 2014, is reversed insofar as reviewed, on
the law, the cross claims of the defendant PI Associates, LLC, are converted into third-party causes of action, the motion of the defendant PI Associates, LLC, for judgment as a matter of law on its third-party cause of action against Pretty Girl for contractual indemnification is granted, and that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Pretty Girl, which was for judgment as a matter of law dismissing all cross claims is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant PI Associates, LLC, payable by the plaintiff and the defendant Pretty Girl.
On November 19, 2011, the plaintiff was walking along a sidewalk in front of certain premises located on Roosevelt...
To continue reading
Request your trial