Jamindar v. Uniondale Union Free Sch. Dist.

Decision Date06 December 2011
Citation2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08908,90 A.D.3d 612,934 N.Y.S.2d 437
PartiesJigar JAMINDAR, appellant-respondent, v. UNIONDALE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents-appellants,Irwin Contracting, Inc., et al., defendants-respondents-appellants;Herrick's Mechanical Corporation, third-party defendant-respondent-appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08908
90 A.D.3d 612
934 N.Y.S.2d 437

Jigar JAMINDAR, appellant-respondent,
v.
UNIONDALE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents-appellants,Irwin Contracting, Inc., et al., defendants-respondents-appellants;Herrick's Mechanical Corporation, third-party defendant-respondent-appellant.

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

Dec. 6, 2011.


[934 N.Y.S.2d 439]

Kramer & Pollack, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Larry Kramer of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Uniondale, N.Y. (Kathleen A. Foley of counsel), for defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents-appellants.

Conway, Farrell, Curtin & Kelly, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Jonathan T. Uejio of counsel), for defendant-respondent-appellant Irwin Contracting, Inc.Tromello, McDonnell & Kehor, Melville, N.Y. (Kevin P. Slattery of counsel), for defendant-respondent-appellant Conor Construction Consultants.Cascone & Kluepfel, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Michael T. Reagan of counsel), for defendant-respondent-appellant Northgate Electrical.Churbuck, Calabria, Jones & Materazo, P.C., Hicksville, N.Y. (George Jones and Nicholas P. Calabria of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent-appellant.ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

[90 A.D.3d 612] In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, (1) the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sher, J.), dated August 10, 2010, as denied his motion for summary judgment on the cause of action alleging violations of Labor Law § 240(1) insofar as asserted against the defendants third-party plaintiffs, Uniondale Union Free School District and Uniondale High School, and the defendant Conor Construction Consultants, (2) the defendants third-party plaintiffs, Uniondale Union Free School District and Uniondale High School, cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them or, alternatively, for conditional summary judgment on their cross claim for contractual indemnification against the defendant Northgate Electrical and their third-party causes of action for contractual indemnification against the third-party defendant, Herrick's Mechanical Corporation, (3) the defendant Irwin Contracting, Inc., separately cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order [90 A.D.3d 613] as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, (4) the defendant Conor Construction Consultants separately cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied those branches of its cross motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it or, in the alternative, for conditional summary judgment on its cross claims for contractual and common-law indemnification against the defendant Northgate Electrical and the third-party defendant, Herrick's Mechanical Corporation, (5) the defendant Northgate Electrical separately cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and (6) the third-party defendant, Herrick's Mechanical Corporation, separately cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as denied those branches of its cross motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), the third-party complaint, and all cross claims and counterclaims alleging common-law indemnification, contribution, and contractual indemnification insofar as asserted against it.

[934 N.Y.S.2d 440]

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, (1) by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) insofar as asserted against the defendants third-party plaintiffs, Uniondale Union Free School District and Uniondale High School, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion, (2) by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the cross motion of the defendants third-party plaintiffs, Uniondale Union Free School District and Uniondale High School, which was for conditional summary judgment on their cross claim for contractual indemnification against the defendant Northgate Electrical and their third-party causes of action for contractual indemnification against the third-party defendant, Herrick's Mechanical Corporation, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the cross motion, (3) by deleting the provision thereof denying the cross...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • Brereton v. Queens Balark Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • July 20, 2021
    ...v North Shore Hebrew Academy, 119 A.D.3d 631' 989 N.Y.S.2d 505 [2d Dept 2014]; Jamindar v Vniondale Union Free Sch. Dist., 90 A.D.3d612, 934 N.Y.S.2d 437 [2d Dept 2011]). Here, there was no evidence of a contractual agreement between DPS and either QBC or BML. In opposition, DPS failed to r......
  • Reyes v. Sligo Constr. Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • September 25, 2019
    ...(Correia v Professional Data Mgt, 259 A.D.2d 60, 65, 693 N.Y.S.2d 596 [1st Dept 1999]; see Jamindar v Uniondale Union Free School Dist., 90 A.D.3d 612, 934 N.Y.S.2d 437 [2d Dept 2011]). Although the primary action has been dismissed against Sligo, where, as in this case, the agreement betwe......
  • Gabriel v. Baldwin Props. Mgmt. LLC, INDEX NO. 17467/09
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • May 7, 2012
    ...negligence and may be held liable solely by virtue of statutory or vicarious liability. (Jamindar v. Uniondale Union Free School Dist., 90 A.D.3d 612, 934 N.Y.S.2d 437 (2d Dept. 2011); Cava Constr. Co., Inc. v. Gealtec Remodeling Corp., 58 A.D.3d 660, 871 N.Y.S.2d 654 (2d Dept. 2009)). Cond......
  • Opalinski v. City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 2, 2013
    ...condition,” raised for the first time on appeal, is not properly before this Court ( see Jamindar v. Uniondale Union Free School Dist., 90 A.D.3d 612, 617, 934 N.Y.S.2d 437). While it is true that “[an] issue may be raised for the first time on appeal [where] it is one of law appearing on t......
  • 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