Attorney successfully defended a Motion for Summary Judgment brought against our client, the property owner, by Co-Defendant, and for prevailing on our client's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment in the Supreme Court of the State.

Attorney successfully defended a Motion for Summary Judgment brought against our client, the property owner, by Co-Defendant, and for prevailing on our client's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment in the Supreme Court of the State. This matter arose out of an alleged slip and fall which caused the plaintiff, a male in his mid-thirties, to undergo three knee surgeries which required open reduction and internal fixation. Co-Defendant, the conglomerate association responsible for maintaining the property, alleged that it owed no-duty to the plaintiff in part because it was not the property owner, and because it subcontracted the maintenance out to another, third defendant, which performed all the maintenance work. Furthermore, co-defendant alleged that as the property owner, our client had a non-delegable duty to the plaintiff. Ultimately, the court found that there was insufficient notice to our client, and held there was no evidence to establish that the alleged hazardous condition existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident for the property owner to discover and repair it. Moreover, the court found that the conglomerate's control over the subcontracted maintenance company was significant enough to create a question of fact as to whether the conglomerate owed a duty to the plaintiff, directly. Finally, the court held there was no basis for the cross-claims for indemnification brought by the two co-defendants against the property owner. Therefore, all claims and cross-claims were dismissed against the property owner, with prejudice.