Hadzihasanovic v. 155 East 72nd St. Corp..
| Decision Date | 02 February 2010 |
| Parties | Muhamed HADZIHASANOVIC, plaintiff,v.155 EAST 72ND STREET CORPORATION, et al., appellants,Dale Hoffman, et al., respondents, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Garcia & Stallone, Melville, N.Y. (Karl Zamurs of counsel), for appellants.Hoey, King, Toker & Epstein (Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Scott T. Horn], of counsel), for respondents.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ARIEL E. BELEN, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants 155 East 72nd Street Corporation and Wallack Management Co., Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated December 8, 2008, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on their cross claim insofar as asserted against the defendants Dale Hoffman and Stephen Hoffman for contractual indemnification, and granted that branch of the motion of those defendants which was for summary judgment dismissing that cross claim insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendants Dale Hoffman and her husband, Stephen Hoffman (hereinafter together the Hoffmans), purchased shares in a cooperative building located at 155 East 72nd Street (hereinafter the co-op building), and entered into a proprietary lease on an apartment. The co-op building was owned by the 155 East 72nd Street Corporation, a cooperative housing board (hereinafter 155 Corp.), and managed by Wallack Management Co., Inc. (hereinafter Wallack).
The Hoffmans hired a contractor to perform certain alterations to their apartment. To gain the approval of 155 Corp. and Wallack to commence the alterations, the Hoffmans submitted an alteration agreement.
The contractor hired a number of subcontractors. The plaintiff, Muhamed Hadzihasanovic, who worked for one of the subcontractors, allegedly was injured while working in the apartment. He commenced this action against, among others, 155 Corp., Wallack, and the Hoffmans.
155 Corp. and Wallack asserted, inter alia, a cross claim against the Hoffmans for contractual indemnification. Subsequently, the Hoffmans moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the cross claim of 155 Corp. and Wallack for contractual indemnification insofar as asserted against them. 155 Corp. and Wallack moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on their cross claim insofar as asserted against the Hoffmans for contractual indemnification based on the alteration agreement.
The Supreme Court denied that branch of the motion of 155 Corp. and Wallack which was for summary judgment on their cross claim insofar as asserted against the Hoffmans for contractual indemnification, and granted that branch of the Hoffmans' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing that cross claim insofar as asserted against them. The court reasoned that the alteration agreement was void pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5–321. We affirm the order insofar as appealed from.
The Hoffmans met their initial burden...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gradwohl v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. Llc
...omitted]; see Michalski v. Home Depot, Inc., 225 F.3d 113, 120). Here, viewing the evidence submitted in support of the defendant's[70 A.D.3d 637] summary judgment motion in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the nonmoving parties ( see generally Fundamental Portfolio Advisors, Inc......
-
Amaral v. Reph
...cause of the accident ( see Cartica v. Kieltyka, 55 A.D.3d 523, 865 N.Y.S.2d 284; Jones v. Radeker, 32 A.D.3d 494, 820 N.Y.S.2d 321; [896 N.Y.S.2d 83] Yondola v. Trabulsy, 22 A.D.3d 483, 801 N.Y.S.2d 534; Szymanski v. Holenstein, 15 A.D.3d 941, 790 N.Y.S.2d 346; Garrett v. Manaser, 8 A.D.3d......
-
Guryev v. Tomchinsky
...is inapplicable ( cf. Dwyer v. Central Park Studios, Inc., 98 A.D.3d 882, 884, 951 N.Y.S.2d 16;Hadzihasanovic v. 155 E. 72nd St. Corp., 70 A.D.3d 637, 896 N.Y.S.2d 83). Further, Tomchinsky's contention that the contractual indemnification clause violated General Obligations Law § 5–322.1 is......
-
Russo v. Home Goods, Inc.
...it is unnecessary to consider the adequacy of the plaintiff's opposition papers ( see Gradwohl v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC, 70 A.D.3d at 637, 896 N.Y.S.2d 85). Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been ...