Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Andrzej SZYMCZYK, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. HUDSON 36 LLC et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Hudson 37 LLC, Third–Party Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Forward Heating Corp., et al., Third–Party Defendants–Respondents.
Hudson 37 LLC, Second Third–Party Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Horsepower Electric and Maintenance Corp., Second Third–Party Defendant–Appellant.
Hudson 36 LLC et al., Third Third–Party Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. Quality Facility Solutions Corp., Third Third–Party Defendant–Respondent.
Horsepower Electric and Maintenance Corp., Fourth Third–Party Plaintiff–Appellant–Respondent, v. Manhattan Fire & Security Electrical Co. LLC, Fourth Third–Party Defendant–Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Dakota D. Ramseur, J.), entered on or about April 26, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied second third-party defendant Horsepower Electric and Maintenance Corp.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the second third-party claim against it for common-law indemnification and contribution, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.
In this construction accident case plaintiff alleges that he slipped in an interior staircase on an approximately five-inch piece of unattached BX electrical cable. Horsepower was named as a second third-party defendant by defendants/third-party plaintiffs Hudson 36 LLC, the owner of the subject property, and Hudson 37 LLC, the general contractor at the site (collectively Hudson). Horsepower established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by showing that it was not working at or near the site of the accident on the date of the accident or in the days immediately prior (see e.g. Santoli v. 475 Ninth Ave. Assoc., LLC, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 32569[U] [Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2007]). It also provided unrebutted testimony concerning its protocol for consolidating its workplace debris at the end of each day. A separate subcontractor was tasked with cleaning the worksite. Hudson did not submit a brief on this appeal. Its argument in opposition below rested entirely on the allegation that Horsepower was the only trade that used the BX cable on which plaintiff allegedly slipped. This allegation, standing alone, was insufficient in the face of Horsepower's evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see Digirolomo v. 160 Madison Ave LLC, 194 A.D.3d 640, 640, 144 N.Y.S.3d 567 [1st Dept. 2021]; Kimball–Malone v. City of New York, 7 A.D.3d 675, 675–676, 777 N.Y.S.2d 513 [2d Dept. 2004]).
Accordingly, Supreme Court should have granted the motion to dismiss the second third-party claim against Horsepower for common-law indemnification and contribution.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 4604
Decided: August 14, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)