Filed Date: 2/14/2012
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Pratt’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party cause of action for common-law indemnification. Pratt established, prima facie, that the injured plaintiffs accident was not due solely to its negligent performance or nonperformance of an act solely within its province (see Schultz v Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Co., 68 AD3d 970, 972 [2009]). In opposition, Retail and Control failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).
However, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of Pratt’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification, because Pratt failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not breach the relevant contract by failing to perform one or more of the services for which it was retained (see Abramowitz v Home Depot USA, Inc., 79 AD3d 675, 677 [2010]; Baratia v Home Depot USA, 303 AD2d 434, 435 [2003]).
We decline Retail and Control’s request to search the record and award them summary judgment on the third-party cause of