PESANTE v. VERTICAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP., 29 N.Y.3d 983 (2017)
Court: Court of Appeals of New York
Number: innyco20170504280
Visitors: 5
Filed: May 04, 2017
Latest Update: May 04, 2017
Summary: OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. Defendants Vertical Industrial Development Corp. and Rentar Development Corp. owed plaintiff a nondelegable duty to keep the premises safe ( see Rosenberg v Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S., 79 N.Y.2d 663 , 668 [1992], rearg dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 825 [1993]). Triable issues of fact exist regarding whether the security firm hir
Summary: OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. Defendants Vertical Industrial Development Corp. and Rentar Development Corp. owed plaintiff a nondelegable duty to keep the premises safe ( see Rosenberg v Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S., 79 N.Y.2d 663 , 668 [1992], rearg dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 825 [1993]). Triable issues of fact exist regarding whether the security firm hire..
More
OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.
Defendants Vertical Industrial Development Corp. and Rentar Development Corp. owed plaintiff a nondelegable duty to keep the premises safe (see Rosenberg v Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S., 79 N.Y.2d 663, 668 [1992], rearg dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 825 [1993]). Triable issues of fact exist regarding whether the security firm hired as an independent contractor by Vertical and Rentar was negligent in performing its duties and whether Vertical and Rentar could be held vicariously liable as a result. Accordingly, the Appellate Division properly denied the motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against Vertical and Rentar.
Chief Judge DiFIORE and Judges RIVERA, STEIN, FAHEY, GARCIA and WILSON concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative, in a memorandum.
Source: Leagle
