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.
Mynor Folgar, plaintiff-respondent, v. Vermeer Manufacturing Company, defendant-respondent, Taylor Rental, appellant, et al., defendant (and a third-party action).
Submitted—November 7, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Taylor Rental appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), dated June 24, 2009, as denied those branches of its cross motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it by the defendant Vermeer Manufacturing Company, and for summary judgment on its cross claim for indemnification against the defendant Vermeer Manufacturing Company.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant Taylor Rental failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that it was not negligent in renting an allegedly defective stump grinder to the plaintiff's employer (see Martin v. Hacker, 83 N.Y.2d 1, 9 n 1; Haight v. Banner Metals, 300 A.D.2d 356; Johnson v. Johnson Chem. Co., 183 A.D.2d 64, 69). Furthermore, Taylor Rental failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on a lack of proximate cause, since it did not prove that the plaintiff did not use the allegedly defective stump grinder on the date of the accident (see Restrepo v. Rockland Corp., 38 AD3d 742).
Furthermore, Taylor Rental failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its cross claim for indemnification against Vermeer Manufacturing Company (hereinafter Vermeer) (see Gilbert v. Kingsbrook Jewish Ctr., 4 AD3d 392, 393). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of Taylor Rental's cross motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it by Vermeer, and for summary judgment on the cross claim against Vermeer.
RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, BELEN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
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: 2009–07134 (Index No. 28578 /05)
Decided: December 06, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)