Summary
The court modified a judgment dismissing claims against the hotel owner, Diamondrock Hospitality Company, and its management company, Courtyard Management Corporation. It held that Diamondrock did not establish that it had completely relinquished possession and control of the premises and therefore could remain subject to claims concerning its nondelegable duty to maintain the elevators. The court upheld dismissal of claims against Courtyard under the Workers’ Compensation Law exclusivity bar and declined to reinstate the plaintiff’s complaint because the plaintiff had not appealed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Diamondrock, as the owner of a hotel and elevator premises, established that it had completely parted with possession and control so as to avoid liability as an out-of-possession owner.
- Whether Diamondrock's management agreement with Courtyard conclusively established that Diamondrock had no right or responsibility regarding operation and maintenance of the building.
- Whether the cross claims against Courtyard were barred by the Workers' Compensation Law because Marriott, plaintiff's employer, was Courtyard's alter ego.
- Whether the complaint should be reinstated when plaintiff did not appeal from its dismissal.
Holdings
- Diamondrock was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the cross claims because it failed to establish that it had completely parted with possession and control of the hotel premises and therefore failed to eliminate its potential liability as an out-of-possession owner.
- The dismissal of the cross claims against Courtyard was proper because the record established that Courtyard was protected by the Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity bar through its alter-ego relationship with Marriott, plaintiff's employer.
- The complaint was not reinstated because plaintiff did not appeal, and the appellants could receive full relief without reinstatement.
Key quotations
“It is also undisputed that the premises is a hotel, which is a multiple dwelling under Multiple Dwelling Law § 4 (9).” (502)
“Diamondrock failed to meet its burden of establishing that it had “completely parted with possession and control” of the premises such that it, as an out-of-possession owner, should be exempt from liability” (503)
“Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmovants, the management agreement does not “irrefutably establish” that Diamondrock “had no right or responsibility regarding the operations of the building itself”” (503)
Factual background
Diamondrock owned a hotel premises containing elevators, and Courtyard managed the hotel. Diamondrock's management agreement with Courtyard was not a lease and reserved Diamondrock several rights concerning maintenance, repair, restoration, operation, and operation of the hotel or common elements. The record also demonstrated that Marriott, plaintiff's employer, was Courtyard's alter ego, supporting application of the Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity bar to the cross claims against Courtyard.
Procedural history
Supreme Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and entered judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against Diamondrock and Courtyard. The Appellate Division modified the judgment by denying Diamondrock's motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the cross claims against it and converting the cross claim against Diamondrock to a third-party claim. The judgment was otherwise affirmed, including dismissal of the cross claims against Courtyard and refusal to reinstate the complaint because plaintiff did not appeal.
Remand instructions
Diamondrock's motion for summary judgment was denied insofar as it sought dismissal of the cross claims against it, and the cross claim against Diamondrock was converted to a third-party claim. The judgment was otherwise affirmed.