From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coyle v. Long Island Savings Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 2, 1998
248 A.D.2d 350 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

March 2, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which denied that branch of the motion of the defendant Long Island Savings Bank which was to dismiss the cross claim of the defendant DeCan Landscaping Co., Inc., and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court that factual issues exist as to whether the defendant Long Island Savings Bank (hereinafter the Bank), in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that an icy condition existed on its parking lot area and whether reasonable care was exercised in its maintenance of the premises (see, DeStefano v. Gutterman-Warheit Realty Corp., 237 A.D.2d 245; Colgan v. Newsday, Inc., 233 A.D.2d 360; Fisher v. Big V. Supermarkets, 221 A.D.2d 499; cf., Simmons v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 N.Y.2d 972; Grillo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 214 A.D.2d 648).

Moreover, although the defendant DeCan Landscaping Co., Inc. (hereinafter DeCan), "assumed no duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm to the plaintiff by virtue of its contractual duty to remove snow from the subject premises" (DeCurtis v. T. H. Assocs., 241 A.D.2d 536, 537; see also, Autrino v. Hausrath's Landscape Maintenance, 231 A.D.2d 943; Phillips v. Young Men's Christian Assn., 215 A.D.2d 825, 826), if the plaintiff is successful against the Bank for negligent failure to maintain the parking lot, DeCan may be required to indemnify the Bank (see, Phillips v. Young Men's Christian Assn., supra, at 827). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not err in granting that branch of DeCan's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, while denying that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the Bank's cross claim for indemnification. However, in light of the court's determination to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against DeCan it should also have dismissed DeCan's cross claim against the Bank for contribution.

Sullivan, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Coyle v. Long Island Savings Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 2, 1998
248 A.D.2d 350 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Coyle v. Long Island Savings Bank

Case Details

Full title:DOLORES COYLE, Respondent-Appellant, v. LONG ISLAND SAVINGS BANK…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 2, 1998

Citations

248 A.D.2d 350 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 628

Citing Cases

Rapone v. Di-Gara Realty Corp.

The Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of KGC's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing…

Peycke v. Newport Media Acquisition II, Inc.

A triable issue of fact exists as to whether the plaintiff's injuries were attributable to the nonperformance…