Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Cassese v. SVJ Joralemon, LLC
Citation: 2019 NY Slip Op 91Docket: 2016-05897
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; January 8, 2019; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In the case of Cassese v SVJ Joralemon, LLC, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court reversed an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had denied a motion by the third-party defendant, Tri-State Elevator Co. Inc., to dismiss a third-party complaint. The underlying action involved personal injury claims from Anthony Cassese, an elevator mechanic employed by Tri-State, who alleged that he was injured when his hand was trapped in an elevator sheave in a building owned by the defendants. The defendants sought indemnification from Tri-State based on a contract from 1987 with Joralemon Arms Company. Tri-State's motion to dismiss was based on CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7), which allows dismissal if the defense is established by documentary evidence or if the complaint fails to state a cause of action. The court noted that to grant a motion under CPLR 3211(a)(1), the evidence must conclusively dispose of the claims, while for CPLR 3211(a)(7), the allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true and liberally construed. The court referenced several precedents regarding the standards for motions to dismiss, emphasizing that dismissal should not occur unless there is no significant dispute over material facts. Ultimately, the appellate court granted Tri-State's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, thereby ruling in favor of Tri-State on the legal issues presented. Workers' Compensation Law § 11 restricts third-party claims for indemnification against employers unless the employee has suffered a "grave injury" or there is a pre-accident written contract where the employer explicitly agreed to indemnify the third-party claimant. In this case, Tri-State successfully moved to dismiss the third-party action for common-law contribution or indemnification under CPLR 3211(a)(7) because the complaint did not allege that the injured plaintiff suffered a "grave injury" as defined by the law. Additionally, Tri-State was entitled to dismissal of the claims for contractual indemnification and breach of contract regarding insurance procurement under CPLR 3211(a)(1). The 1987 contract referenced by the defendants did not include any express indemnity agreement for the injuries claimed or a promise to procure insurance, thus resolving the contractual claims as a matter of law. The Supreme Court should have granted Tri-State's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint.