Rivera v 2297 Enter. Corp.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rivera v 2297 Enter. Corp. 2012 NY Slip Op 33320(U) January 5, 2012 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 306808/2010 Judge: Lucindo Suarez Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] "JAN 0 9 2bl~ Moc_ Seq. Ql_ PART 19 Case Disposed 0 Settle Order 0 Schedule Appearance U Jndc;.; N". 30680812010 - against - }Jon. J,JJCINDO SllAR~:z, Justice. TERPRISf, C<lRP . .,,,:·r --------------------,_,£._ ------------------------------x and third- lion. The fiillo\\·ing papers numbered I to 1read011 this motion. DISMISSAL. Noticed on Nove1nbcr 9 2011 and <lulv submitted as No. 47 on the Motion Calendar of ~ecember 21 2011 PAPERS N!.JMBERED t-:olice of Motion - Order Co Show Cause - E,hibtl> and Affida,·its Annexed An;1>ering Aflida' it and ExhibL!s '- 2,3,4,5 6_ 7 ReplyLng Affida\ ¢it and Exhibits AITtdavics and E,;hibits Pleading.'· ExhLblt S!ipulal 1on(s) . Referee's Report - Mu1ute' riled PJpe1s Mem'1ranJa of La11 Upon the foregoing papers, the application oftl1ird-purly dcfendanls for dismissal of the third-party co1nplaint is gr!ll1tc<l in part, in accordai1ce ,1·ith the annexed decision aod order. Dated: 01/05(2012 LUCINllO SUARF:Z, ,J.S.C. [* 2] FILED Jan 09 2012 Bronx County Clerk SUPREMJ; COUR"f OF l"HE ST1\ TE OF NE\\1 YORK COUNTY OF 13R0/\1X: J_,\.S. PART 19 ------" -------------------------------------------------------------x BRIAN Rl\1ERA, DECISJO/\' AND ORDER Plaintiff. l11dex Nu 30680812010 - against - 2297 ENTERPRISE CORP. dlh/a SOFA LOIJNGE, Defendant --------------------------------------------------------------------x 2297 ENl'ERl'RISE, rNC. dfh/a SOJ'A LOUNGE, Third- Party Plaintiff. Third-Party lndc~ No. s4024no11 - against JONATHAN VIERc\ and SAMUEi. PEREZ. ·rhird-Party [)cfendants. --------------------------------------------------------------------X PRESloNT: T-lon. l.ucindo Suarez Upon the notice of motion dated October 11, 2011 of third-party defendants and the aftin11ation, affidavits (2) and exhibits submitted in support thereof: the anlrmation in oppositio11 dated December 20, 2011 of lhird-party plaintiff and the exhibits sub111ittcd there,vith; and due deliberation: the court 1inds: Plainti IT alleges that t,,·o patrons assaulted hi1n in defendant·~ night club. Defendant i1nplcd the third-party dcl'tndant~ on the ground that they con1mirted the assault. Third"party defendants 110\V move pursuant to CPLR 321 I (a)(7) to dismiss the third"party claiin for co1nm<>n-la\V indem11ification on the gr\>und that the third-part;.· complaint fails to state a cause of action because there is no "contract or status." }.fiele v Cil)'0}'.'-1~1<' }'ork, 270 A.D. 122. 123, 58 N.Y.S.2d 407. 408 ( 1~t J)cp ·t 194 5), to support the claim. The third-party defendants subrnit aflidavits a''e1Ting that [* 3] FILED Jan 09 2012 Bronx County Clerk they do not ha\'e conlractual relation;hips 1 ¢:itl1 deti:ndant. Thiid-party plaintiff argues that the duty· underlying the clain1 for con1n10n-la11' indemnification n1ay be implied by principles of fairness and equity, and that disn1issing the claim 1vould he pre1nature in ar1y event ,,·ithout :iny discovery as lo the po>siblc relationship bct11'ee11 the panics. "A CPLR 32 l 1 dis1niss;il ·may be ~anted 1vhere documentary t\'idencc submitted conclusi1 -cly establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a maner of la"''-.,. Goldn111n "- },fetro. l.ife Jns_ Co .. 5 N. Y .3d 561, 571. 84 l N.E.2d 742, 745, 807 N. Y.S.2d 583. 586 (2005) (citations omined). "\\'hen cvidcntiary material i~ considered, the criterion is 'vhcthcr th~ proponent of the pleading has a cause of ;iction, not v;hether he h"5 stated one, and. unless it has hcen sho,,n that a material fact as claimed b~· the pleader to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that 110 _,ignificant dispute exists regarding it, ;igain dismissal should not eventuate." Guggenheimer, 43 N.Y.2d al 275, 3721''.E.2d at 20-21, 401 N.Y.S.2d at 185. The affidavits submitted in >lLpport ofa rnotion to disn1iss n1ust conclusive!} establish the lack of a cluim or cau>e of action . .'5ee (Jodfi"e}' v. ¢ 'lp11no, 13 N.'r'.3d 35S, 920 N.E.2<l 328. 892 N.Y.S.2d 272 (2009). The motion m;iy be grante<l if the complaint'> essential facts have "been negated bcyon<l substantial question . . so that it might be ruled that the pleader docs not ha>·e the causes of action." .'iee G11g~enhei1ner, 43 N.'l'.2d at 275. 3721''.F,.l<l at 21, 40! N.Y.S.2d at 186. ·rhe third-party con1plaint plainly ~tat cs cognizable cause<> of action: the third-party defendants" affida>·its must therefore conclusively establish the lack of a claim for comrnon- lu "' i11demnification. The affidavits negate any clain1 that defendant's liability 'vould he solely vicarioos and thus subject to con11non-ln"' indemnificativn. Defendant has an independc11t ·'duly to maintain the pre1n1scs in a reasonably safe condition under all the cir~lln1stances including, taking into consideration the nature of the part1c1Llar 2 [* 4] FILED Jan 09 2012 Bronx County Clerk premises, the likelihood ofinjlll)' to those on the premises, arid how burdcnson1e it would be lo prevent the risk of injury."" 1.-le;y·han v. RM lio/ding.1· Cu111pan)', Inc., 2009 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5695, at ¢ ¢14. ¢ ¢15 (Sup. Ct. N.Y County May 9, 2009). Defendant, ho,,·e\·cr, 'voul<l have no duly to protect against unexpected ai1d unli.>resccnble incidents. See Kiel)' 1·_ Benini. 89 1\.D.3d 807, 932 N. Y.S.2d 181 (2d Dcp't 2011) In either event, defendant's liability ,,,,·ould be predicated upon its o'''ll ncgl igence; as plaintiffs complaint as~erts no th~'O')' other than de fcndanl ·s ov. ¢n negligen~e. defendant thel'efore carmol assert a c!ain1 ft1r common-la,,· indemnillcation again~! third-party defendants . .<iee C:h1111n v. 1\'c''' }'ork Ci/)' !-fou.1·_ Auth., 83 A.D.3d 416, 922 N.Y.S.2d 3 (Isl Dcp·t 2011); 1;s1eva 1· 1Y(1sh. 55 A.D.3d 474. 474, 866 N.Y.S.2d 186 (l~l Dcp't 2008); Mathis r Park Con<~rvl1ncy, C:~nlral 251 A.D.2d 171, 674 N. Y.S.2d 336 (1st Dep"t 1998). Accordi11gly, il is ORilERED, that the niotion of third-part}' defendants for disn1issal of the third-party complaint is granted solely to the extent of dismissing the third-party clairn for con1mon-la\v indemnification; and it is further ORDF.R!;D, that the Clerk of the Court i~ directed to enter judg1nenl in favor ofthird-pa1ty defc11danls and against third-party plaintiff solely to the extent of disn1issing tl1e third-party claim for common-la"· indc1nnificati1n1. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. Dated: January 5, 2012 J

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.