Calo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation305 A.D.2d 351,757 N.Y.S.2d 893
PartiesFLORENCE CALO et al., Plaintiffs,<BR>v.<BR>WAL-MART STORES, INC., Respondent, and<BR>PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, INC., Appellant.
Decision Date05 May 2003

305 A.D.2d 351
757 N.Y.S.2d 893

FLORENCE CALO et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., Respondent, and
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, INC., Appellant.

Decided May 5, 2003.


Ritter, J.P., Luciano, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order dated December 4, 2001, is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for leave to reargue is denied, and the order dated September 4, 2001, is reinstated.

The defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (hereinafter Wal-Mart), failed to demonstrate that the Supreme Court misapprehended any of the relevant facts that were before it or misapplied any controlling principle of law (see McNamara v Rockland County Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn., 302 AD2d 435 [2003]). Therefore, Wal-Mart's motion for leave to reargue should have been denied.

[305 A.D.2d 352]

In opposition to the prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by the defendant Property Maintenance, Inc. (hereinafter Property Maintenance) on the cross claim, Wal-Mart failed to raise a triable issue of fact that Property Maintenance may be held liable for contribution on the underlying claim for damages arising from a trip and fall (see New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308 [1995]; Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540 [1992]; Logan v Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 275 AD2d 187 [2000]; Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of N.Y. v Gwathmey Siegel & Assoc. Architects, 192 AD2d 151 [1993]). Accordingly, the original determination dismissing Wal-Mart's cross claim seeking contribution was correct.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Caiola v. Allcity Insurance Company
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 5 Mayo 2003
    ...v DiBlasi, 293 AD2d 530 [2002]). Subsequently, the Supreme Court, after conducting a hearing, adjudicated the appellant in criminal [305 A.D.2d 351] contempt and imposed maximum fines aggregating $2,000 (see Judiciary Law § 751 [1]). This appeal followed. Where, as here, a court commences a......
1 cases
  • Caiola v. Allcity Insurance Company
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 5 Mayo 2003
    ...v DiBlasi, 293 AD2d 530 [2002]). Subsequently, the Supreme Court, after conducting a hearing, adjudicated the appellant in criminal [305 A.D.2d 351] contempt and imposed maximum fines aggregating $2,000 (see Judiciary Law § 751 [1]). This appeal followed. Where, as here, a court commences a......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT