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.
— A Hilton O. Suarez, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Defendant–Respondent–Appellant, Goodsons Tremont, LLC, Defendant, McGuire's Service Corp., Defendant–Appellant–Respondent.
Zalman Schnurman & Miner PC, New York (Marc H. Miner of counsel), for respondents.
_
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered February 27, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon renewal, denied defendant McGuire's Service Corp.'s (McGuire's) motion for summary judgment and reinstated the complaint as against it, and otherwise adhered to the prior order, same court and Justice, entered July 15, 2013, denying defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank's (JPMC) motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint as against it and judgment on its cross claims for indemnification against McGuire's, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the July 15, 2013 order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.
In this action for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff Hilton O. Suarez when he slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot of JPMC's bank branch located on East Tremont Avenue in the Bronx, there are questions of fact precluding an award of summary judgment to defendant McGuire's, the snow removal contractor. Specifically, there is an issue of fact as to whether McGuire's entirely displaced JPMC's obligation to maintain the premises safely (see Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., 98 N.Y.2d 136, 140 [2002] ). Although the snow removal contract uses broad language suggesting that McGuire's “entirely absorb[ed]” JPMC's duty, there is evidence in the record that JPMC retained control over the snow removal services by directing McGuire to stop using sand on the icy parking lot and to remove piles of snow from the premises (Espinal, 88 N.Y.2d at 140–141).
We have considered the parties' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 1511 7 1511 7
Decided: May 14, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
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)