Nunez v. Chase Manhattan Bank

• Decision Date: 01 November 2017
• Docket Number: 2015-05012, Index No. 11784/05.
• Citation: 155 A.D.3d 641,63 N.Y.S.3d 481
• Parties: Porfirio NUNEZ, plaintiff-respondent, v. CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs-appellants-respondents; Thyssenkrupp Elevator Company, Inc., defendant third-party defendant/ fifth-party plaintiff-respondent-appellant; National Elevator Inspection Services, Inc., et al., fifth-party defendants, Nouveau Elevator, fifth-party defendant-appellant-respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

155 A.D.3d 641

63 N.Y.S.3d 481

Porfirio NUNEZ, plaintiff-respondent,

v.CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs-appellants-respondents;

Thyssenkrupp Elevator Company, Inc., defendant third-party defendant/ fifth-party plaintiff-respondent-appellant;

National Elevator Inspection Services, Inc., et al., fifth-party defendants,

Nouveau Elevator, fifth-party defendant-appellant-respondent.

2015-05012, Index No. 11784/05.

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

Nov. 1, 2017.

Perry, Van Etten, Rozanski & Primavera, LLP, Melville, NY (Leonard Porcelli of counsel), for defendants third-party plaintiffs-appellants-respondents.

Raven & Kolbe, LLP, New York, NY (Michael T. Gleason of counsel), for fifth-party defendant-appellant-respondent.

Babchik & Young, LLP, White Plains, NY (Jordan Sklar of counsel), for defendant third-party defendant/fifth-party plaintiff-respondent-appellant.

Sacco & Fillas, LLP, Bayside, NY (Andrew Wiese of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, (1) the defendants third-party plaintiffs, Chase Manhattan Bank and J P Morgan Chase & Co., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Butler, J.), entered March 30, 2015, as denied those branches of their motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them and for summary judgment on their third-party cause of action against the defendant third-party defendant Thyssenkrupp Elevator Company, Inc., for contractual indemnification, (2) the defendant third-party defendant, Thyssenkrupp Elevator Company, Inc., cross-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 and counterclaims insofar as asserted against it, and (3) the fifth-party defendant Nouveau Elevator appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the fifth-party complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, payable by the plaintiff, (1) that branch of the motion of the defendants third-party plaintiffs, Chase Manhattan Bank and J P Morgan Chase & Co., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them is granted, (2) that branch of the motion of the defendants third-party plaintiffs, Chase Manhattan Bank and J P Morgan Chase & Co., which was for summary judgment on their third-party cause of action against the defendant third-party defendant, Thyssenkrupp Elevator Company, Inc., for contractual indemnification, is denied as academic, (3) the motion of the defendant third-party defendant, Thyssenkrupp Elevator Company, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims and counterclaims insofar as asserted against it is granted, and (4) the motion of the fifth-party defendant Nouveau Elevator for summary judgment dismissing the fifth-party complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it is granted.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured on July 3, 2003, when he fell down an elevator shaft from the second floor in the Chase Bank Building on Jamaica Avenue, in Queens, where he was employed in a maintenance position by United Building Maintenance Corporation. He alleged that the elevator door remained open as he performed his duties on the second floor, but as he re-entered the elevator upon completing his tasks, the elevator cab was not present and he fell down the shaft, landing on top of the elevator cab. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for his injuries against the owners of the building, Chase Manhattan Bank and J P Morgan Chase & Co. (hereinafter together Chase). Chase, in turn, commenced third-party actions against Thyssenkrupp Elevator Company, Inc. (hereinafter Thyssenkrupp), which had, several days before the plaintiff allegedly was injured, entered into an elevator service and maintenance contract with Chase, and against Nouveau Elevator (hereinafter Nouveau), whose elevator service and maintenance contract with Chase had expired several weeks before the plaintiff was injured. In an order dated December 2013, the Supreme Court amended the caption, inter...