Reimold v. Walden Terrace Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 June 2011
• Parties: Felicity REIMOLD, plaintiff,v.WALDEN TERRACE, INC., et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents,Coinmach Corporation, defendant third-party defendant-appellant, et al., defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

85 A.D.3d 1144
926 N.Y.S.2d 153
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05685

Felicity REIMOLD, plaintiff,
v.
WALDEN TERRACE, INC., et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents,Coinmach Corporation, defendant third-party defendant-appellant, et al., defendant.

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

June 28, 2011.

[926 N.Y.S.2d 154]

Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for defendant third-party defendant-appellant.Thomas D. Hughes, New York, N.Y. (Richard C. Rubinstein and David D. Hess of counsel), for defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents.PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

[85 A.D.3d 1144] In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Coinmach Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Butler, J.), entered January 25, 2010, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the third party complaint, and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the [85 A.D.3d 1145] provision thereof denying those branches of the appellant's motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims and third-party causes of action for contractual and common-law indemnification, and substituting therefor a provision granting those branches of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell on water emanating from a flooded laundry room in an apartment complex owned and managed by the defendants third-party plaintiffs Walden Terrace, Inc., and ARAS Properties, Inc. (hereinafter together Walden Terrace). Walden Terrace had leased the laundry rooms in the complex to the defendant Coinmach Corporation, also incorrectly sued and impleaded herein as Coinmach Industries Co. (hereinafter Coinmach). The lease, among other things, provided for Coinmach's exclusive use and occupancy of the laundry rooms for a fixed period of time, in return for monthly rent payments. Pursuant to the terms of the lease, Coinmach was required to inspect the laundry rooms once per week in accordance with a checklist, while Walden Terrace was responsible for maintaining the rooms in a clean condition. Coinmach moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as well as all cross claims and the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it, in which Walden Terrace asserted claims for contribution, contractual indemnification, and common-law indemnification. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We modify.

The Supreme...