Mesler v. Podd LLC

• Decision Date: 18 November 2011
• Citation: 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08424,933 N.Y.S.2d 493,89 A.D.3d 1533
• Parties: Dana MESLER and Cynthia Mesler, Plaintiffs–Respondents–Appellants, v. PODD LLC, Developers Diversified Realty Corporation, BG BCF, LLC, et al., Defendants,JJK Management, Inc., Weight Watchers International, Inc., and Weight Watchers North America, Inc., Defendants–Appellants–Respondents.Developers Diversified Realty Corporation and BG BCF, LLC, Third–Party Plaintiffs, v. JJK Management, Inc., Third–Party Defendant. (Appeal No. 1.)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08424

89 A.D.3d 1533

933 N.Y.S.2d 493

Dana MESLER and Cynthia Mesler, Plaintiffs–Respondents–Appellants,

v.PODD LLC, Developers Diversified Realty Corporation, BG BCF, LLC, et al., Defendants,JJK Management, Inc., Weight Watchers International, Inc., and Weight Watchers North America, Inc., Defendants–Appellants–Respondents.Developers Diversified Realty Corporation and BG BCF, LLC, Third–Party Plaintiffs,

v.JJK Management, Inc., Third–Party Defendant. (Appeal No. 1.)

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

Nov. 18, 2011.

Lippman O'Connor, Buffalo (Gerard E. O'Connor of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant–Respondent JJK Management, Inc.

Feldman Kieffer, LLP, Buffalo (Stephen M. Sorrels of Counsel), for Defendants–Appellants–Respondents Weight Watchers International, Inc., and Weight Watchers North America, Inc.

Paul William Beltz, P.C., Buffalo (Debra A. Norton of Counsel), for Plaintiffs–Respondents–Appellants.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained by Dana Mesler (plaintiff) when he slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk in front of a Weight Watchers location in a shopping center owned by defendant-third-party plaintiff BG BCF, LLC and managed by defendant-third-party plaintiff Developers Diversified Realty Corporation (collectively, DDRC defendants). We first address appeal No. 2, wherein the DDRC defendants moved for a conditional order of indemnification against defendant-third- party defendant, JJK Management, Inc. (JJK), and sought additional relief in the alternative. Also in appeal No. 2, JJK cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint in the main action against it. We agree with JJK that the court erred in granting that part of the DDRC defendants' motion for a conditional order of indemnification and in denying JJK's cross motion. We note at the outset that JJK's notice of appeal recites that it is from the order in appeal No. 2 insofar as it denied JJK's cross motion, but it does not reference the order insofar as it granted in part the motion of the DDRC defendants. We note, however, that the brief of the DDRC defendants on appeal addresses their motion despite the omission of a reference to it in JJK's notice of appeal. Thus, “there is no indication on this record that [the DDRC defendants are] prejudiced by that omission, [and] we exercise our discretion to reach beyond the scope of [the] notice of ... appeal and address the merits of [this] issue[ ]” ( Camperlino v. Town of Manlius Mun. Corp., 78 A.D.3d 1674, 1675, 911 N.Y.S.2d 755, lv. dismissed 17 N.Y.3d 734, 929 N.Y.S.2d 62, 952 N.E.2d 1055 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

The Service/Materials Agreement (agreement), whereby defendant -third-party plaintiff Developers Diversified Realty Corporation, on behalf of defendant-third-party plaintiff BG BCF, LLC, contracted with JJK for snow removal and salting services, requires that JJK indemnify the DDRC defendants for liabilities and costs that are “caused in whole or in part by the negligent or intentional act or omission” of JJK employees. Thus, “the contract for snow removal services required [JJK] to indemnify [the DDRC defendants] only in the event that [JJK] was negligent in the performance of the contract and, contrary to [the DDRC defendants'] contention, there are triable issues of fact with respect thereto” ( Walter v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 56 A.D.3d 1187, 1188, 867 N.Y.S.2d 805). The DDRC defendants were also required to establish that they were free from negligence ( see generally General Obligations Law § 5–322.1; Bellefleur v. Newark Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 66 A.D.3d 807, 808, 888 N.Y.S.2d 81), and they failed to establish as a matter of law that they did not “cause [or] allow[ ] a dangerous condition to exist,” as alleged in the amended complaint. The conditional order of indemnification therefore is premature for that reason as well ( see Bellefleur, 66 A.D.3d at 808–809, 888 N.Y.S.2d 81). Because the court did not reach the alternative argument in the DDRC defendants' motion that they are entitled to damages based on JJK's failure to procure liability insurance required by the agreement, we remit the matter to Supreme Court to decide that part of the motion.

With respect to JJK's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint in the main action against it, we note the general rule that “a contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” ( Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., 98 N.Y.2d 136, 138, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485). An exception to that general rule as alleged in the amended complaint and plaintiffs' bills of particulars is “where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of [its] duties, ‘launche[s] a force or instrument of harm’ ” ( id. at 140, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485; see Foster v. Herbert Slepoy Corp., 76 A.D.3d 210, 213–214, 905 N.Y.S.2d 226). Here, even assuming, arguendo, that JJK was negligent in failing to salt the sidewalk, we conclude that such negligence would “amount [ ] to a finding that [JJK] may have merely failed to become ‘an instrument for good,’ which is insufficient to impose a duty of care upon a party not in privity of contract with the injured party” ( Bauerlein v. Salvation Army, 74 A.D.3d 851, 856, 905 N.Y.S.2d 215; see Church v. Callanan Indus., 99 N.Y.2d 104, 111–112, 752 N.Y.S.2d 254, 782 N.E.2d 50).

In appeal No. 1, Weight Watchers International, Inc. and Weight Watchers North America, Inc. (collectively, ...