Echevarria v. 158th St. Riverside Drive Housing Co.
This case involves a plaintiff, an employee of Gould Services, who sustained injuries while attempting to repair a cracked terrace door in a building owned by Riverside. The plaintiff alleged that Riverside, as the building owner, had a duty to repair the door under an occupancy agreement and possessed actual or constructive notice of the defect. The motion court denied Riverside’s motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff, citing triable issues of fact regarding Riverside's duty to repair, the potential modification of the occupancy agreement by prior conduct, and the notice of the defective door. Furthermore, the court granted third-party defendant Gould Services’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing Riverside’s third-party complaint for indemnification. This decision was based on Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as there was no 'grave injury' to the employee and no valid written indemnification agreement existed between Riverside and Gould Services.