Stewart v. City of Port Jervis
Decision Date | 19 April 2021 |
Docket Number | Index No. EF009924-2019,Mot. Seq. Nos. 3,4 |
Citation | 2021 NY Slip Op 33753 (U) |
Parties | DAVID GEOFF STEWART and LAURA ANN KIERSTEAD, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PORT JERVIS, Defendant. CITY OF PORT JERVIS, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. HAYWARD BAKER, INC., Third-Party Defendant. CITY OF PORT JERVIS, Second Third-Party Plaintiff, v. DA. COLLINS CONSTRUCTION CO., Second Third-Party Defendant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court |
Motion Date: March 18, 2021
Motion Date: March 19, 2021
Present: HON. CATHERINE M. BARTLETT, AJ.S.C.
HON CATHERINE M. BARTLETT, A.J.S.C.
To commence the statutory time period for appeals as of right (CPLR 5513 [a]), you are advised to serve a copy of this order, with notice of entry, upon all parties.
The following papers numbered 1 to 8 were read on the motion of D.A. Collins Construction Co. to dismiss the cross claims of Hayward Banker, Inc., and the cross motion of Hayward Baker Inc. for leave to file a verified amended answer with cross claims:
Notice of Motion - Affirmation / Exhibits - Memorandum........................... 1-3
Notice of Cross Motion - Affirmation / Exhibits - Memorandum..................... 4-6
Reply Affirmation - Reply Memorandum........................................ 7-8
Upon the foregoing papers, it is ORDERED that the motions are disposed of as follows:
A. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendant City of Port Jervis to recover for personal injuries arising out of a construction site accident. The City of Port Jervis commenced a third-party action against Hayward Baker, Inc. ("HBI") a subcontractor on the project, and a second third-party action against D. A. Collins Construction Co. ("D. A. Collins"), the general contractor. After the commencement of the second third-party action, HBI filed a document entitled "Cross Claim Against Second-Third-Party Defendant D.A. Collins Construction Co Inc." asserting claims for contribution and common law indemnification against D.A. Collins.
D.A Collins moves for dismissal of HBI's cross claims on the grounds that (1) HBI's filing was a nullity, and (2) HBI purportedly waived all rights of action against D.A. Collins in the Subcontract Agreement. HBI moves for leave to amend its answer to assert a cross claim for contribution (but not indemnification) against D.A. Collins. Inasmuch as the "Cross Claim" which HBI filed is not a kind of pleading authorized by CPLR §3011, that filing is a nullity. On the other hand, if HBI does have valid cross claims against D.A. Collins, there is no reason why it should not be accorded leave to amend its answer to assert them. Hence, the question presented is whether HBI has valid cross claims against D.A. Collins for common law indemnification or for contribution.
B. The Standard Governing CPLR §3211(a)(1) Motions To Dismiss Based On Documentary Evidence
A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(1) based upon documentary evidence maybe granted only where the evidence "utterly refutes plaintiffs factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law..." Goshen v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, 98 N.Y.2d 314, 326 (2002); 25-01 Newkirk Avenue, LLC v. Everest National Ins. Co., 127 AD33d 850, 851 (2d Dept. 2015); Louzoun v. Kroll Moss and Kroll, LLP, 113 A.D.3d 600, 601 (2d Dept. 2014). See, Leon v. Martinez supra, 84 N.Y.2d at 88; Dodge v. King, 19 A.D.3d 359,360 (2d Dept. 2005) ( ).
Annexed as "Exhibit C" to the Subcontract Agreement is a document entitled "Insurance Requirements." It states in pertinent part:
D. HBI Has No Valid Claim Against D. A. Collins For Common Law Indemnification
The Subcontract Agreement provides for contractual indemnification of D. A. Collins by HBI. This is a "one way obligation" to indemnify, flowing by contract from HBI as indemnitor to D. A. Collins. As a matter of law, any reciprocal common law obligation by D. A. Collins to indemnify HBI is extinguished. See, Lamela v. Verticon, Ltd., 185 A.D.3d 1319,1322 (3d Dept. 2020) ( ).
Therefore HBI has no valid cross claim against D. A. Collins for common law...
To continue reading
Request your trial