Isaacs v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc.

• Decision Date: 11 January 2017
• Citation: 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00156,44 N.Y.S.3d 203,146 A.D.3d 762
• Parties: Kim ISAACS, respondent, v. FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs respondents-appellants; Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corporation, third-party defendant-appellant-respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

146 A.D.3d 762
44 N.Y.S.3d 203
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00156

Kim ISAACS, respondent,
v.
FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs respondents-appellants;

Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corporation, third-party defendant-appellant-respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Jan. 11, 2017.

44 N.Y.S.3d 204

Babchik & Young, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Matthew J. Rosen of counsel), for third-party defendant-appellant-respondent.

Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Harry Steinberg and Stewart G. Milch of counsel), for defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents-appellants.

Hecht, Kleeger & Damashek, P.C. (Ephrem J. Wertenteil, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for respondent.

LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

146 A.D.3d 763

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant, Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corporation, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated January 20, 2015, as denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint and for summary judgment on its counterclaims for common-law and contractual indemnification, and the defendants third-party plaintiffs cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, (1) by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the third-party defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof denying the defendants third-party plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision granting that motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the third-party defendant and the defendants third-party plaintiffs appearing separately and filing separate briefs, payable by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured while riding an escalator at a Macy's department store in Brooklyn, which was owned by the defendants third-party plaintiffs (hereinafter collectively Macy's). In May 2010, the plaintiff commenced this action against Macy's. Macy's commenced a third-party action seeking, inter alia, indemnification and contribution against the third-party defendant Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corporation (hereinafter Thyssenkrupp), which had a contract with Macy's for escalator maintenance and repair services at the time of the accident.

...