Lennard v. Mendik Realty Corp.Lennard v. Mendik Realty Corp.
In this matter, the Court of Appeals has determined that summary judgment dismissing the complaint was not appropriate because “[d]efendants, owners and managers of the premises, failed to establish that they lacked constructive notice of the allegedly defective floor tiles as a matter of law. . . .” (Id. at 910, citing Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]; Chapman v Silber, 97 NY2d 9, 19 [2001].)
In view of the foregoing, we find that the motion court properly granted defendants’ motion for conditional contractual indemnification as against the City to the extent of directing it to indemnify defendants for any liability arising out of the accident that was not the result of defendants’ own negligence. This ruling is in accord with
Finally, the motion court properly directed that both plaintiff and the City disclose the last known addresses of both eyewitnesses, to the extent known by them, and properly precluded plaintiff from offering the testimony of such witnesses in the event she failed to comply. Preclusion of the witnesses’
Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.