Palomeque v Capital Improvement Servs., LLC

Palomeque v Capital Improvement Servs., LLC 2013 NY Slip Op 00466 Decided on January 30, 2013 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 30, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
PLUMMER E. LOTT
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
2012-01579
(Index No. 20340/10)

[*1]John Palomeque, et al., plaintiffs,

v

Capital Improvement Services, LLC, defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent, et al., defendant; Konsker Electric Corp., third-party defendant-appellant.




James R. Pieret, Garden City, N.Y. (Joseph J. Rava of counsel), for
third-party defendant-appellant.
Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, New York, N.Y.
(Francis A. Garufi of counsel), for defendant
third-party plaintiff-respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Iannacci, J.), entered December 12, 2011, which granted the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff for summary judgment on its second cause of action in the third-party complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant third-party plaintiff, Capital Improvement Services, LLC (hereinafter Capital), established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its second cause of action in the third-party complaint, which sought contractual indemnification. Capital tendered the subcontract agreement, which provided for indemnification by the third-party defendant against liability for the underlying accident, and demonstrated that it was free from negligence in the happening of this accident (see Quilliams v Half Hollow Hills School Dist. [Candlewood School], 67 AD3d 763; George v Marshalls of MA, Inc., 61 AD3d 931). In opposition thereto, the third-party defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted Capital's motion for summary judgment on its second cause of action in the third-party complaint (see Roldan v New York Univ., 81 AD3d 625, 629; see also Brown v Two Exch. Plaza Partners, 76 NY2d 172; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320).

The third-party defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., LOTT, AUSTIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court