Dorsey v Verizon N.Y., Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Dorsey v Verizon N.Y., Inc. 2011 NY Slip Op 32121(U) July 29, 2011 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: 22988/08 Judge: Jeffrey Arlen Spinner Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF TIIE STATE OF NEW YOIiK IAS PART XXI - COURT OF SUFFOLK PR 13S 1 h T : ; ' HON. ,JEFFREY AIi1,ISN SI'INNISR Jiistice ol' the Siiprcnie ('ourt CANDICE DOKSEY, INDEX N O : 229 88/0 8 PI ai n t i ff, MI'N SEQ NO OliIC; M'1 N 11,111 OY I O I I i UPON the following papers numbered 1 to 4 read on this Motion: 1 Dcl'cnclunt VERIZON's Motion: 2 1'1 ;ti n t i l'f ' s Op pos i ti on ; 3 . Ilc l'c n clan t I> YN AS H I V ' s 0p pos iti on ; 4 De l'i. 11 ;I n t V 1:* R 1ZO N ' s Rep Iy ; cl , , , II 1s. O l i I ) F ~ l W I ~ , the application of Defendant L'ERIZON that I S hereby gi-anted i n all rcspec~ts. Ikl'cndant VERIZON moves this Court for an Order, pursuant to CI'LII $32 13, grmtiing siimmai-y judgmcnt 011 its cross claims against Dcl'entlant D Y N A S E R V for c o n l ~ ~ ; ~ c ~ t u ~ i l i 11tlcm n if'i c at i on . common I ;iw ii i Clem n i l'i c at i on ;in d brc ;IC h of con t rxc t for it s tai I i i re to proc iLi IY i ~ i ~ i ~ i ~ ; ~ ~ i c Ilcl'cncl:int VIiRIZON ;is xlclitional insui~ccl i t s policy ol' Iiahi lit>) iiixtii~;iiicc. naminy e on Page 1 o f 6 [* 2] 3.3) Upon ~ny accumulation of snow or Ice occtiri.ing diirinz w o i - I i i n ~lioiirs. [DeI'entliin t DY N A SER V] is respon s ibl e f'or m;iin t ai n i n g sa fc \'chic I c ancl pedestrian ingress & egress tIiroii!&oiit the d u i ~ ~ i t i oof' the snow f'nll 1'01. l o c a t i o ~ i s n codccl "A" 0 1 - "13". . . 3.-3) the c\rent of temperattii-e fluctuations above and below I'imzing such ;is In clay melting and cold overnight, [Defendant DYNASERV] will monitor all I oc at i on s i nc I udi n g ai I w a1I< w a y s , dri v c ~ a y s a n cl st ai I-wa y s for i cc con di ti on s . v [Defendant DYNASEKV] will spread ;I sand and ice melting inaterial mix ( o r other ice melting/traction mixture as specified by the Property M\/Ianager) 011 clri\mvays, parking lots, etc., and calcium chloride o n stairways and [ w ~ i l l i w a y s ] to alleviate said conditions . . . (.\,o(~: Contract Exhibit B3. I'aragraplis 3. I - 3.3). 'I'he Contract lists Ilel'cndmt VERIZON's I O A d m s Street Property ;is :I "Code B" property. 'flie Contr'ict ; i I w c o n t a n s a n "INDEMNIFICA'1'ION" clause and an "INSC'RANCE" c l m w In t he "I M DEM N I F I CAT ION" c I a use. the Contract states t t i ;I t : [ I>cI'cnclant DY NASEIIV] shall Del'encl, indeninil'y and hold Iiaimlcss [ llcf'cndant VEJIIZONJ . . . fi-om m y claims . . . t h ~ i tm a y be m;icle: (i) b y anyonc 1'01~n~iii-ics (incluclin~ death) to 1xrsons or damage t o property. I-csulting in w h o l e 0 1 ' in part 11-om the acts or omissions of' [Delenclant Il\r'NASI3<V] . . . ( . S ( J O : ('ontact. I'~ll-agrapll18(a)) Page 2 of 6 [* 3] I 11 t he ' ' 1N S U R A NC E" c I ;til se , the Contract 5t ate s t h a t : \' De I'cn dan t E l i E O N b r i n g s I'ort h t h i s ino t i on f o r s LI tiiniar y _j uclgnicn t on i t s c IUS s -c I ai m a g i i i s t Ilel'enctant DYNASERV, arguing that Defendant DYNASEIIV must contrxtually and b y c~)~iiinon indemnify it against this lawsuit, ;is Plaintiff's claim ;irose from Ilei'end;.int I:I\Y D Y N A S E R V ' s failure to clear the sidewalk of ice. Defenclant VEIIIZON d s o arsues tIiLtt I)el'endant DYKASEIIV br-eachecl the Conti-act b y not securing propei'ty ins~ii-;inccJ'or i t . I>efen cla n t D Y N 1 S E R V rcs poi1clccl t h at t hc i n de mn i fi c at i 011 c I ;ILISC tli et n o t ai>13 I y i n t 1 i s 171at IC I. 1 1 because i t was l>eI'endant VEIIIZON who, i f anyone. \+/as negligent. lkl'cnchnt I I Y N/\SIiRV 1 i el n o t De fe n d the i ns i ran cc al I eg at i o n . 1 t lor-summary judgment shall be granted, when upon all the papers iincl pi-oof submittocl, m o v a n t establishes i t s cause of action sufficiently to wan-ant the Coiii-t, ;IS a matter of law. to clirect jiidginent in its Savor (see: Friends of iiriirriuls Iric v Assohicited Fur M(iii~rJircirrrers I K , I 46 N Y 2 d 1065 [ 19791; CPLR $321203)). Even when m o v a n t establishes ;I p/-i/jui,fiic.ic~c ~ t s ein ~iippoi'tof summary judgnient, opponent retains a n opportiinity to dcl'cncl iiiov;int's Motion b y stio\ving 1':tcts suf'f'icient to require ;i trial o n any issue of l'act ( , S C J P : Z I I C ~ ~ I - I1' N e wI I I ~ N York. 49 N Y X 567 [ IOXO]: CPLR $3212(b)). 14 niotion Tliis Court finds that Defendant VERIZON's cross claims arc ripe for summary jucl~ment:there i-cm:iins no cluestion of' fact for ;I jury to decide. Both Defendmts disagree ;is to which party. i f cithcr. \v;is negligent i n allowing the ice to ~ I C C L I I ~ L I on ~thc Sidewalk. That clisagi~ccment, ~L ~C h(.)\vever. is not based on ; disagreement of facts, but rather on ;I differential i.cading of [he plain I languagc 01' the Contract. Ncither party disputes c x l i other- regarcling thc l'acls sui-roirnclin~ the 1~I:iintiI'l'sslip, Neither pirty clispiitcs e ~ othci- rcgai-cling the past actions of' thc Ilef'cnclant~~ h in relation to the C o n t i x t . Neither party cIisi>iitcsthe validity 01' the ontra tract. This C'oiirt c;1n m:ilic ;I jiiclgient ha.sccl on the tinclisputctl t'acts prescntecl, and ;I j u r y trial on DcI'cncl:int Vl:Rl%Ol\l's ci'oss claims ;ire not nccc ii-y. A trial on the facts will b e nccc 11.)' t o cletclmlnc the I ' i n ~ l I clucs~ionof' nc$igcncc hct\vccn f'liiiiitil'f m d Dcl'cntlants. hi11 hat is ; scparatc i s h t i c J'i~)ni I this s 1 7 mal-y jllcl~mcn. 111 t Page 3 of 6 [* 4] "INDEMNIFICA'TlOru"' L'EIII%ON is not solely '- N D 1 3 4 N I I FIC A T 1 0 N i'I3IIZON. dcpcnds o n S i c k \ \ ;111\. " clause, there is ;I cIc;ir intent to indemnify, as Ions ;is Det'cncla,nt negligent. Therefore, this Court's decision ;is to \vhether to ;ipply the c 1;iiise. ;in d t he 1-c ore whet h cr to g ran t s 11 m m ai-y j~iclgmc t to Ilc 1'0 n el ;i 11t f' 11 ~ v h o\\';IS at faull, it' either party. in letting icc accumu1:ite on the llcl'cnd;int IIYNASERV argues t h a t according to Mcrrtiiiez v City of' ~ V c w 1'or.k. llcl'cnclxit VERIZON must prove that i t \\';is f'ree of negligence v, i t h regard to the happctittig of' the plaintil'f's accident (.SOP: Mwtinez v City oJ'New York, 901 NYS3d 339 [3 Dept l O l O ] ) . 'I'hc actual langu;Ige 01' the case is b i u d e r : "'I'he right to c o n t i x t u a l inclcmni I'ic;ition tlcpencls upon t the specil'ic language of' the contract." id. Since the Contract in;Il\es i t c l c ~h a t i l ' both De I'c11 ;I 11t s are n cg I igent , t ti e "IN IIEM N I FICA1'1 ON c I ause app I i e s , IIct'c n clan t I> Y N A S I S R V s ci argument that Dcl'endant VERIZON must prove that i t was I'rcc from negligence is f'alse. As per Mcirfiiie,- v City qf' New York, and i n accordance w i t h the Contract, Del'endaiit VIXIZON tni.ist prove t l x i t Defendant DYNASERV, it' either party was negligent, is ;I negligent p a r t y ;IS ;i matlei. of law ( s i p m ) . If both Defendants are potentially at l.aiilt, the Contract makes i t clear that the "INDEMNIFICATION" clause applies, to the degree that both parties are negligent. " ' anulysis 0 1 the Contract is necessary to determine this issue. Unclei- the "Maintenance Ptmxxliirc". the Contract outlines three procedures for Delcndmts to I'ollow. \ I ' h I C h both cite i n their mc)tions. In t h e paragraph 3. I , Defendant DYASEIIV agrees to be on call to piuviclc aclclition~il deicing servic'es at 10 Adnms Street. and will take direction fi-om 1Iefericl:mt \'ERIZON (.sov: Contixt Exhibit B3, Pal-ngraphs 3. I ). Defenclant DYNASERV arziics that the " c - i n call" language a n d the fact that i t must "take direction" from Defendant VEIIIZON. proves that \i,ithout ;iny direction to deice the Sidewalk, it had no contractual cluty to do so. Dcfenci;int VERIZON conceded that i t never called Defendmt DYNASERV to de-ice the Siclcn'allt on or ahout thc date of Plaintiff's slip. Defendant VERIZON does argue. however. that patxgiqh 3. I itself' is n o t dispositive of Defendant IIYNASERV's d u t y to cleice the Siclc\\~aII~. l1clencl:u~t -. 1 \'EREOX highlights l h u l Pai.agraph 3. only refers t o "xlc1ition;d" de-icinf. I h i s ( 7 0 L i i l ayi.ccs t h a t pm-;igi-;iph 3. 1 o n l y rel'ci-s to additional de-icing, ;uid although pxagi-:ipIi 3. I docs n o t I : L'C Ilci'enclant D Y N A S E R V ;I cluty to de-ice, i t cloes not completely ahrogatc i t 1'1-om having ;I c111ty any\\~llcl-c in the Contr:ict. else \ close i Page 4 of 6 [* 5] i-cfen~ed o . Pal-agraph 3.3 clearly zives Defendant D Y N A S E R V a cluty to monitor xid the t Sicleu ;ill< and use the sand and ice melting material mix. lliis Court I'incls t h a t I ' l ~ t i i i ~ ~ l ' l ~' i l l c ~ c c l ' ~ 5 I i p d i e l x i s c . i n w h o l e 01' i n part. I'i.oiii the acts or omissions of' I>cl'cncl;int l l l ' X A S l ~ ~ l < Lstich '. I 1a t . t lic ..I I I> EM1 ru'I F IC A 1 ION.' c I iiuse IV 1 i t 1-i g gc reel . 7'11 is C'o ~11.1 ;IC Iin o 1 ' Ied Ses PI ai n t i t'f ' s A ffi rni at i o n i 1 Part i al 0pposi ti on . argii i n g t I1at it opposes 1 1 ui y 1 1 t h a t 1 i mits Defendant VER IZON' s linbi l i ty or stri Ices ;in y portion of 1'1 ai n t i 11'' s c lai n i s . ui ng Plaintit'l' relies o n $305-3 of the Code of the Town of Oyster Bay, which est;iblisIics ;I cluty on Imclownei.~ keep sidewalks free of ice, among other things. A claim 01' inclemnil'ication clocs to n o t ;ilter thc duties of ;I clelendiint; alternatively. i t j u s t clixigcs \\,lie p ; i y for the \,iolation of' tlicni. "1'hcrcl'oi.c. this ruling does n o t abi-idsc the claims of' Pl~iiitil'f'o r 1i;ilhilitv 01' I>el'end;.int V I K I %ON . j List which Defcndan t would pay for llefendant VEII IZON ' s Iiahi 1it y . i I' 1'c)iiiiel 1i L L I c~ . I I ' this C'ouri finds Ilefendant VEIiIZON t o be liable, Defendant D Y N A S E R V m u s t iiiclcmnil~y De fc 11d 3 n t V ER I ZO N an d pay dam ages t o P 1 ;I i n t i ff . Fui-tliei-more, this ruling must be understood nai-1-owly, as Plaintiff still retains the bui-den of proving t h a t Defendants acted negligently in all the ways she pleaded: this ciecision cloes not in e an that De l'e n dan t D Y N A SER V i s aut om at i c a 1 1y I i ab 1e for dam ages De fend ant D YN A S ER V argued i n its AI'fii-mation In Opposition t h a t i t was not nesligent because the Sicle~';iIIi \\'LIS cIc;ir. 1 hose a i y m e n t s shoulcl be saved 1'01. the case involving the Plaintil'f. Dcf'cnclant V I X I % O N just ncedecl to prove that, should negligence be determined, i t will he the ccoiiomic rcs1mnsiihility 01' De fen dan t I1Y N AS EII V . whet h c I' De fendan t D Y N A SEli V LV ;IS n c g I igent i t sc I 1'. o I' 11 t . o 1>efen clan t D Y NAS EII V re t ai n s the opport iin i t y to de I'en d i t sc If at t ri ;I I. , r 7 There is no reason t h i s Court need consider Defendant VERIZON's claim I'or indciiinil'ication by coin mon 1 ~ i w si nee De fcnclant DY N AS ERV 111re ad y h ;is an ob I i gat i on t o i n de inn i l'y De fc 11 ;in t , cl VERIZON hecausc of i t s contractual obligations. Page 5 o f 6 [* 6] For all the reasons stated herein above and in the totality of the papers siihinitted herein+i t is. t Ilel'cf o re. Settle J i d g ~ n e n on 10 days notice. t r FINAL DISPOSITION 4 J NON-FINAL DISPOSITION DO NO?' SCAN SCAN 'IO: FABER & 'I'ROY. ESQS. 180 Frochlicli F a m Blvd. Wooclhury, NY 11 707 MON'TFORT. HEALY, McGUIRE & SALLEY I 1-40 Franklin Avenue P 0. 7677 Box Gal-den City, N Y 1 1S3O-7677 Page 6 of 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.