Manicone v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 13 July 2010
• Parties: Andrew MANICONE, plaintiff-respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, defendant-respondent, Roosevelt Savings Bank, respondent-appellant, W.E. Bonnie Contracting, Inc., et al., appellants-respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

905 N.Y.S.2d 640
75 A.D.3d 535

Andrew MANICONE, plaintiff-respondent,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, defendant-respondent,
Roosevelt Savings Bank, respondent-appellant,
W.E. Bonnie Contracting, Inc., et al., appellants-respondents.

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

July 13, 2010.

905 N.Y.S.2d 640

Gorton & Gorton LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Thomas P. Gorton of counsel), for appellant-respondent W.E. Bonnie Contracting, Inc.

Havkins Rosenfeld Ritzert & Varriale, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Michelle L. Meiselman of counsel), for appellants-respondents National Rent-A-Fence Co., National Construction Rentals, Inc., and National Construction Rentals, doing business as National Rent-A-Fence.

905 N.Y.S.2d 641

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York, N.Y. (Richard E. Lerner and Patrick J. Lawless of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Robert G. Schacht, PLLC, Staten Island, N.Y. (Robert A. Mulhall of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

JOSEPH COVELLO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, RANDALL T. ENG, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.

75 A.D.3d 535

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant W.E. Bonnie Contracting, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Velasquez, J.), dated February 18, 2009, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, the defendants National Rent-A-Fence Co., National Construction Rentals, Inc., and National Construction Rentals, doing business as National Rent-A-Fence, separately appeal from so much of the same order as denied their separate motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted

75 A.D.3d 536

against them or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on their cross claim for contractual indemnification against the defendant Roosevelt Savings Bank, and the defendant Roosevelt Savings Bank separately appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the plaintiff payable by the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he tripped and fell over a bracket supporting a temporary fence in front of premises owned by the defendant Roosevelt Savings Bank (hereinafter the bank). The temporary fence had been erected on the public sidewalk in front of the bank because the exterior facade of the building was undergoing renovation. Photographs of the accident site taken two days after the accident showed that the brackets supporting the fence were...