Paz v. Trump Plaza Hotel & CasinoPaz v. Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino
Plaintiff Lilia Paz was injured when an escalator on which she was riding in defendant/second third-party plaintiff Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino‘s (Trump) premises came to a sudden stop. Otis serviced the escalators in the premises pursuant to its contract with Trump. Plaintiff commenced an action against
Plaintiff appealed, and we reversed and reinstated the complaint on the basis that there were triable issues regarding “among other things, whether a defective or dangerous condition existed, and notice” (Paz v Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, 28 AD3d 212, 213 [2006]). Following this decision, Trump commenced a second third-party action against Otis, which moved to dismiss on the basis that the action was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel (
The court properly denied Otis‘s motion. The previous dismissal of Trump‘s third-party complaint against Otis was not on the merits. Rather, it was in light of the dismissal of plaintiff‘s complaint, and Trump‘s claims against Otis for indemnification and contribution were never addressed. Accordingly, neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel serves as a bar to the second third-party action (see Parada v City of New York, 283 AD2d 314 [2001]).
Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Marlow and Williams, JJ.