Garcia v. 267 Dev. LLC
Docket Index No. 160076/16|Appeal No. 6524|Case No. 2025-01235|
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02780
- Docket numbers
- Index No160076/16Appeal No6524Case No2025-01235
Appeal from an order denying summary judgment by third-party defendant Chutes and Compactors seeking dismissal of the second third-party complaint
Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department reversed Supreme Court and granted summary judgment to Chutes and Compactors, dismissing 267 Development LLC's second third-party complaint. The building owner (267 Development) sought contractual indemnification, common-law indemnity and contribution, and insurance-failure damages from Chutes after a porter was injured by glass near a compactor. The court held Chutes' contractual obligations had ended long before the accident, there was no evidence Chutes had been negligent in failing to warn about or create the missing safety cover, and the owner abandoned its insurance claim by not opposing that part of the motion.
Issues Decided
- Whether the owner's contractual indemnification claim against the installer is triggered when the installer completed work long before the accident
- Whether the installer owed a duty to inspect for, warn about, or install a missing safety cover after completing installation
- Whether the owner presented evidence that the installer was negligent such that common-law indemnity or contribution claims survive summary judgment
- Whether the owner's insurance-procurement claim was preserved where it failed to oppose that part of the motion
Court's Reasoning
The court relied on the fact that Chutes' contractual work (installation with a proper cover) was completed about a year before the accident, so the indemnity clause was not triggered. There was no evidence the cover was missing when Chutes last serviced the compactor five months earlier, and New York precedent holds an independent repairer not under a maintenance contract has no duty to install safety devices or inspect and warn of defects. Finally, the owner failed to oppose dismissal of the insurance-procurement claim and thus abandoned it.
Authorities Cited
- Chiarovano v 237 Park Owner, LLC232 AD3d 410 (1st Dept 2024)
- Agard v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.227 AD3d 404 (1st Dept 2024)
- Rappaport v DS & D Land Co., L.L.C.127 AD3d 430 (1st Dept 2015)
- Josephson LLC v Column Fin., Inc.94 AD3d 479 (1st Dept 2012)
Parties
- Plaintiff
- Pablo A. Garcia
- Defendant
- 267 Development LLC
- Second Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent
- 267 Development LLC
- Second Third-Party Defendant-Appellant
- Chutes and Compactors of New York Inc. Doing Business as Chutes Enterprises
- Judge
- Lynn R. Kotler
- Judge
- Webber, J.P.
- Judge
- Moulton
- Judge
- Mendez
- Judge
- Higgitt
- Judge
- Michael
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-05-05
- Order entered (Supreme Court)
- 2025-01-31
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Entry of judgment
The Clerk is to enter judgment dismissing the second third-party complaint as directed by the appellate order.
- 2
Consider further appeal
If the owner wants to continue, it should consult counsel about seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals or other appellate remedies and calendar any deadlines.
- 3
Dismissed claims — case management
The plaintiff and owner should update case plans and settlement discussions in light of the dismissal of the owner's claims against Chutes.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court granted summary judgment to the installer and dismissed the owner's claims for contractual indemnity, common-law indemnity and contribution, and the insurance-procurement claim was abandoned.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- 267 Development LLC (the owner) loses its claims against Chutes; Chutes is no longer liable to the owner for contribution or indemnity in this case.
- Why did the owner lose its claims?
- Because Chutes finished its contracted installation long before the accident and there was no evidence Chutes knew of or caused the missing cover, and the owner failed to oppose dismissal of its insurance claim.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Possibly to the New York Court of Appeals, but further review would depend on whether a party seeks permission or meets criteria for appeal to that court.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Garcia v 267 Dev. LLC - 2026 NY Slip Op 02780 Garcia v 267 Dev. LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 02780 May 5, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Pablo A. Garcia, Plaintiff, v 267 Development LLC, Defendant. [A Third-Party Action] 267 Development LLC, Second Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, Chutes and Compactors of New York Inc. Doing Business as Chutes Enterprises, Second Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. Decided and Entered: May 05, 2026 Index No. 160076/16|Appeal No. 6524|Case No. 2025-01235| Before: Webber, J.P., Moulton, Mendez, Higgitt, Michael, JJ. Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP, New York (Chirag Satsangi of counsel), for appellant. Schiavetti, Corgan, Diedwards, Weinberg & Nicholson, LLP, New York (Edward R. Nicholson of counsel), for respondent. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered on or about January 31, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion of second third-party defendant Chutes and Compactors of New York Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the second third-party complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the second-third party complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Plaintiff claims he sustained injuries as a result of being struck in his eye by glass while working as a porter near a trash compactor in a building owned by second-third party plaintiff 267 Development LLC. Chutes Enterprises (Chutes) was contracted by 267 Development LLC, to install the compactor. The parties do not dispute that the scope of Chutes' work pursuant to its contract was limited to the installation of the compactor with a proper cover. Nor do they dispute that Chutes completed the installation of the compactor approximately a year before plaintiff's accident. Thus, the owner's contractual indemnification claim against Chutes should be dismissed because Chutes "was no longer under a contractual obligation . . . at the time of plaintiff's accident and the indemnity provision [was] not triggered" ( Chiarovano v 237 Park Owner, LLC , 232 AD3d 410, 410 [1st Dept 2024]). The owner's common-law indemnity and contribution claims against Chutes should also have been dismissed because it failed to submit evidence that Chutes was negligent in not warning it about the absence of a safety cover on the compactor. There is no indication that the cover was missing when Chutes came to the building to service the compactor approximately five months before plaintiff's accident ( see Agard v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. , 227 AD3d 404, 404-405 [1st Dept 2024]). Further, this Court has recognized that "[i]n the absence of a contract for routine or systematic maintenance, an independent repairer/contractor has no duty to install safety devices or to inspect or warn of any purported defects" ( Rappaport v DS & D Land Co., L.L.C. , 127 AD3d 430, 431 [1st Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Finally, the owner abandoned its claim alleging that Chutes failed to procure insurance since it failed to oppose the part of Chutes' motion that sought summary judgment dismissing that claim ( see Josephson LLC v Column Fin., Inc. , 94 AD3d 479, 480 [1st Dept 2012]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: May 5, 2026