Imtanios v. Sachs, 1075.

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation2007 NY Slip Op 07489,843 N.Y.S.2d 569,44 A.D.3d 383
Decision Date09 October 2007
PartiesNEHME IMTANIOS, Respondent, v. GOLDMAN SACHS et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. AMERICAN BUILDING MAINTENANCE CO., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
Docket Number1075.
44 A.D.3d 383
843 N.Y.S.2d 569
2007 NY Slip Op 07489
NEHME IMTANIOS, Respondent,
v.
GOLDMAN SACHS et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents.
AMERICAN BUILDING MAINTENANCE CO., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
1075.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Decided October 9, 2007.

Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department, entered on or about November 18, 2005, which reversed an order of Civil Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered December 30, 2004, and reinstated the complaint against defendants Goldman Sachs and Jones Lang LaSalle Management, Inc. (Jones Lang) and the third-party complaint against American Building Maintenance Company (ABM), reversed, on the law, without costs, and the complaint and third-party complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.


In this action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff Nehme Imtanios, a porter employed by ABM, alleges that in May 2000, as he was taking out the trash at the premises occupied by Goldman Sachs at 85 Broad Street, he slipped on a metal computer part that had been left on the floor. Jones Lang, the property manager for the premises, had hired ABM to perform cleaning and janitorial services at the location. Jones Lang entered into a service agreement on behalf of Goldman Sachs with ABM for that purpose.

According to the service agreement, ABM was to provide trash removal, and maintenance of common areas and freight elevator areas. ABM agreed to indemnify Goldman Sachs for any claims arising out of ABM's negligent performance of its duties or out of any breach by ABM of the terms of the service agreement.

Plaintiff, who had worked for ABM for 11 years, testified at his deposition that his duties included going into the bathrooms and pantries to remove trash and to bring it to the freight elevator area on each floor. Plaintiff testified that on the day of the

44 A.D.3d 384

accident, he entered the freight elevator area with trash and saw that there were computer parts, such as monitors, keyboards, mouse pads, and wires on the floor near the elevator, in front of the trash bin. As he walked to the bin to place the trash in it, he slipped and fell on a metal computer part.

In June 2001, plaintiff commenced this action against Goldman Sachs and Jones Lang, alleging that they had been negligent in, inter alia, maintenance of the premises. In May 2003, defendants commenced a third-party action against ABM, asserting claims for, inter alia, contribution and contractual indemnification.

In December 2004, the Civil Court granted defendants' summary judgment motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint against them. In so doing, the court found that the computer parts on the floor near the freight elevator constituted an open and obvious condition. Further, the court found, the items on the floor were "part of or inherent in" the very work being performed. Both these conclusions, the court found, foreclosed any claim of negligence against Goldman Sachs or Jones Lang. Consequently, the court also dismissed the third-party action against ABM.

In November 2005, Appellate Term reversed, finding that although the condition that caused plaintiff's injury may have been open and obvious, that condition "only eliminated defendants' duty to warn of the hazardous condition; it did not negate their broader duty to maintain the workplace in a reasonable safe condition." Thus, Appellate Term found, plaintiff's failure to observe the metal computer part went only to the question of comparative negligence. Further, the court found that issues of fact remained as to whether defendants were negligent in creating or failing to remedy the situation of computer parts on the floor, particularly in view of the deposition testimony...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp..
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • May 27, 2010
    ...an employee cannot sue for injuries caused by conditions inherent in the work he is tasked to perform ( Imtanios v. Goldman Sachs, 44 A.D.3d 383, 385–386, 843 N.Y.S.2d 569 [2007], lv. dismissed 9 N.Y.3d 1028, 852 N.Y.S.2d 11, 881 N.E.2d 1198 [2008] ). It is also true that “[w]hen a workman ......
  • Fox v. Starbucks Corp., 19-CV-4650 (AJN)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • September 13, 2021
    ...duty was to hire a cleaning service to clean the premises for the cleaning service” that might suffer an injury. Imtanios v. Sachs, 843 N.Y.S.2d 569, 572 (N.Y.App.Div. 2007). Starbucks argues that it did not owe a duty to D'Auria and Shwiner because “removing any pest strips found and repla......
  • Annicaro v. Corporate Suites, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • August 8, 2012
    ...keep a particular area free of debris, and that his alleged injuries were caused by debris in that area ( see Imtanios v. Goldman Sachs, 44 A.D.3d 383, 385–386, 843 N.Y.S.2d 569;Jackson v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 30 A.D.3d 57, 63, 812 N.Y.S.2d 91). Since, in opposition, the plaintif......
  • Rojas v. 1000 42nd St., LLC, 2017–03107
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 28, 2018
    ...v. Wody, 98 A.D.3d 965, 966, 951 N.Y.S.2d 59 ; Schindler v. Ahearn, 69 A.D.3d at 838, 894 N.Y.S.2d 462 ; Imtanios v. Goldman Sachs, 44 A.D.3d 383, 385–386, 843 N.Y.S.2d 569 ; Steiner v. Benroal Realty Assocs., L.P., 290 A.D.2d 551, 736 N.Y.S.2d 702 ; Marin v. San Martin Rest., 287 A.D.2d 44......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp..
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • May 27, 2010
    ...an employee cannot sue for injuries caused by conditions inherent in the work he is tasked to perform ( Imtanios v. Goldman Sachs, 44 A.D.3d 383, 385–386, 843 N.Y.S.2d 569 [2007], lv. dismissed 9 N.Y.3d 1028, 852 N.Y.S.2d 11, 881 N.E.2d 1198 [2008] ). It is also true that “[w]hen a workman ......
  • Fox v. Starbucks Corp., 19-CV-4650 (AJN)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • September 13, 2021
    ...duty was to hire a cleaning service to clean the premises for the cleaning service” that might suffer an injury. Imtanios v. Sachs, 843 N.Y.S.2d 569, 572 (N.Y.App.Div. 2007). Starbucks argues that it did not owe a duty to D'Auria and Shwiner because “removing any pest strips found and repla......
  • Annicaro v. Corporate Suites, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • August 8, 2012
    ...keep a particular area free of debris, and that his alleged injuries were caused by debris in that area ( see Imtanios v. Goldman Sachs, 44 A.D.3d 383, 385–386, 843 N.Y.S.2d 569;Jackson v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 30 A.D.3d 57, 63, 812 N.Y.S.2d 91). Since, in opposition, the plaintif......
  • Rojas v. 1000 42nd St., LLC, 2017–03107
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 28, 2018
    ...v. Wody, 98 A.D.3d 965, 966, 951 N.Y.S.2d 59 ; Schindler v. Ahearn, 69 A.D.3d at 838, 894 N.Y.S.2d 462 ; Imtanios v. Goldman Sachs, 44 A.D.3d 383, 385–386, 843 N.Y.S.2d 569 ; Steiner v. Benroal Realty Assocs., L.P., 290 A.D.2d 551, 736 N.Y.S.2d 702 ; Marin v. San Martin Rest., 287 A.D.2d 44......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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