Guzman v. Howe

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed appeals arising from a personal-injury action involving a trip on an uneven sidewalk adjacent to a leased restaurant. The court dismissed certain appeals and portions of appeals as procedurally improper or brought by parties not aggrieved, but reversed the judgment insofar as it dismissed the claims and cross-claims against the restaurant. The court held that ambiguities in the lease raised issues of fact concerning the restaurant's sidewalk-repair obligations and potential contractual indemnification liability.

Holdings

1. The appeals from the order granting Steger's summary-judgment motion had to be dismissed because the right of direct appeal from the order terminated upon entry of the judgment.
2. Steger was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint because it failed to establish prima facie that it had no obligation to repair or replace the sidewalk, and the lease provisions created a triable issue as to whether the lease entirely displaced the landowners' duty.
3. Steger was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Howe defendants' contractual and common-law indemnification cross-claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appeals from the interlocutory order granting summary judgment had to be dismissed after entry of judgment.
2. Whether the plaintiff and the Howe defendants were aggrieved by portions of the judgment dismissing claims asserted by other parties.
3. Whether Steger established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that the lease did not entirely displace the landowners' nondelegable duty to maintain and repair the abutting sidewalk.
4. Whether Steger established entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the Howe defendants' contractual and common-law indemnification cross-claims.

Disposition

reversed