JUAREZ v. RYE DEPOT PLAZA, LLC, 140 A.D.3d 464 (2016)
Court: Supreme Court of New York
Number: innyco20160607342
Visitors: 2
Filed: Jun. 07, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 07, 2016
Summary: Rye and Imajan failed to establish prima facie either that GFX executed the indemnification agreement before plaintiff's accident or that the agreement was intended to be retroactive ( see Mikulski v Adam R. West, Inc., 78 A.D.3d 910 [2d Dept 2010]). Neither Rye's principal nor GFX's principal recalled when the undated agreement was signed. Nor does the conclusory affidavit by the controller of Imajan's manager establish the date on which the agreement was signed. As to retroactivity, the agr
Summary: Rye and Imajan failed to establish prima facie either that GFX executed the indemnification agreement before plaintiff's accident or that the agreement was intended to be retroactive ( see Mikulski v Adam R. West, Inc., 78 A.D.3d 910 [2d Dept 2010]). Neither Rye's principal nor GFX's principal recalled when the undated agreement was signed. Nor does the conclusory affidavit by the controller of Imajan's manager establish the date on which the agreement was signed. As to retroactivity, the agre..
More
Rye and Imajan failed to establish prima facie either that GFX executed the indemnification agreement before plaintiff's accident or that the agreement was intended to be retroactive (see Mikulski v Adam R. West, Inc., 78 A.D.3d 910 [2d Dept 2010]). Neither Rye's principal nor GFX's principal recalled when the undated agreement was signed. Nor does the conclusory affidavit by the controller of Imajan's manager establish the date on which the agreement was signed. As to retroactivity, the agreement contains no "express words or necessary implication [by which] it clearly appears to be the parties' intention to include past obligations" (see Mikulski, 78 AD3d at 911 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
Source: Leagle
