Polanco v. George Units, LLC

Polanco v George Units, LLC 2025 NY Slip Op 32491(U) July 14, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 156079/2019 Judge: Mary V. Rosado Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/14/2025 04:49 P~ INDEX NO. 156079/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/14/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. MARY V. ROSADO PART 33M Justice ----------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 156079/2019 PEDRO A. MIRABAL POLANCO, MOTION DATE 11/05/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 - V -

THE GEORGE UNITS, LLC, EXOTIC FURNITURE CORP., CITY OF NEW YORK AND NEWYORKCITY DECISION + ORDER ON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, MOTION

Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------X

THE GEORGE UNITS, LLC Third-Party Index No. 595643/2020 Plaintiff,

-against-

AVI OISHI

Defendant. ----------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48,49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,56, 59, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99,100,101, 102,103,104,106,107,109,111,112,113,114,115 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS

Upon the foregoing documents, and after a final submission date of May 16, 2025, Third-

Party Defendant Avi Dishi's ("Mr. Dishi") motion for summary judgment dismissing Third-Party

Plaintiff the George Units, LLC (the "George Units") claims asserted against him is granted in part

and denied in part. The George Units' cross motion seeking summary judgment on its Third-Party

Complaint asserted against Mr. Dishi is denied.

L Background

On January 1, 2019, Plaintiff Pedro A. Mirabal Polanco ("Plaintiff'') allegedly tripped and

fell when his foot became stuck in a hole on a sidewalk abutting 13 70 Saint Nicholas Avenue,

156079/2019 MIRABAL POLANCO, PEDRO A. vs. GEORGE UNITS, LLC Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 002

[* 1] 1 of 5

[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/14/2025 04:49 P~ INDEX NO. 156079/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/14/2025

New York, New York (the "Premises") (NYSCEF Doc. 96 at 20). The George Units owns the

Premises (NYSCEF Doc. 54 at 24-25). Avi Dishi is a tenant of the ground floor commercial space

of the Premises pursuant to a lease (NYSCEF Doc. 52). A lease amendment was entered in 2014

extending the lease term an additional twenty years (NYSCEF Doc. 53). The agreements are silent

as to the tenant's responsibility for structural repairs to the sidewalk. Mr. Dishi moves for

summary judgment dismissing the George Units Third-Party Complaint, and the George Units

cross moves for summary judgment on its third-party claims against Mr. Dishi. Plaintiff takes no

position, and Defendants City of New York and the Department of Transportation were dismissed

in motion sequence 003 (NYSCEF Doc. 117). 1

II. Discussion

A. Standard

"Summary judgment is a drastic remedy, to be granted only where the moving party has

tendered sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact." (Vega v

Restani Const. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012]). The moving party's "burden is a heavy one and

on a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-

moving party." (Jacobsen v New York City Health and Hasps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824, 833 [2014]).

Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce

evidentiary proof, in admissible form, sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact

which require a trial (See e.g., Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

B. Mr. Dishi's Motion

Mr. Dishi's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Third-Party Complaint asserted

against him is granted. It is well established that New York Administrative Code § 7-210 places

1 As a result of the City of New York and Department of Transportation being dismissed, this case and the accompanying motion were transferred from a City IAS part to Part 33 on May 14, 2025. 156079/2019 MIRABAL POLANCO, PEDRO A. vs. GEORGE UNITS, LLC Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 002

[* 2] 2 of 5

[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/14/2025 04:49 P~ INDEX NO. 156079/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/14/2025

the duty to maintain sidewalks in reasonably safe condition with the owner of the property abutting

the sidewalk (see, e.g. Chaudhry v Starbucks Corporation, 213 AD3d 521, 522 [1st Dept 2023]).

Pursuant to the Court of Appeals, the duty imposed by§ 7-210 is "an affirmative, nondelegable

obligation" (Xiang Fu He v Troon Management, Inc., 34 NY3d 167, 174 [2019]). The only bases

to impose liability on a tenant for structural defects on a sidewalk abutting a leased premises is if

the tenant created or exacerbated the defect or if the tenant entirely displaces the owner's duty to

maintain the sidewalk (Alfani v Rivercross Tenants Corporation, 230 AD3d 1022, 1023-24 [1st

Dept 2024]; Crim/is v City of New York, 200 AD3d 555 [1st Dept 2021]).

Here, there is no evidence that Mr. Dishi made any special use of the sidewalk, nor is there

evidence that he created or exacerbated the hole in the sidewalk. Moreover, the lease and lease

amendment only required Mr. Dishi to keep the sidewalk clean of trash, debris, snow, and ice -

none of which allegedly caused Plaintifrs injury (see Chaudhry, supra at 522-23). Although the

George Units relies on the sublease entered between Mr. Dishi and the subtenant Defendant Exotic

Furniture Corp. ("Exotic") to argue that Mr. Dishi's tenant assumed responsibility for repairing

the sidewalk, the lease states Exotic would only make "non-structural" repairs (see Negron v

Marco Realty Associates, L.P., 187 AD3d 511 [1st Dept 2020] [hole in sidewalk is a structural

defect and does not fall under purview of non-structural repairs]). Since there is no basis for a

finding of negligence against Mr. Dishi, the third-party claims for common law indemnification

and contribution are dismissed.

The indemnification clause, which does not contain the requisite savings language pursuant

to General Obligations Law § 5-321 and purports to indemnify the George Units for its own

negligence, is unenforceable, especially given the lack of any evidence of Mr. Dishi 's negligence

(see E.S. v Windsor Owners Corp., 224 AD3d 40, 47 [1st Dept 2024]; Carson v .!AD Realty LLC,

156079/2019 MIRABAL POLANCO, PEDRO A. vs. GEORGE UNITS, LLC Page 3 of 5 Motion No. 002

[* 3] 3 of 5

[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/14/2025 04:49 P~ INDEX NO. 156079/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/14/2025

214 AD3d 588,589 [1st Dept 2023]). There is nothing in the record evidencing Mr. Dishi procured

the requisite insurance to bring the indemnification clause within the exception to General

Obligations Law § 5-321 carved out by the Court of Appeals in Hogeland v Sibley, Lindsay &

Curr Co., 42 N. Y.2d 153 (1977) (see also Bessios v Regent Associates, Inc., 214 AD3d 554, 555

[1st Dept 2023]). The George Units expressly argues Mr. Dishi did not procure the required

insurance (see NYSCEF Doc. 86 at , 82). Therefore, the contractual indemnification claim is

dismissed (see also Oduro v Bronxdale Outer, Inc., 130 AD3d 432, 433 [1st Dept 2015]; Port

Parties, Ltd. v Merchandise Mart Props., Inc., 102 AD3d 539, 541 [1st Dept 2013]).

Mr. Dishi's motion is denied as to the breach of contract for failure to procure insurance

claim. Mr. Dishi' s argument that he was not required to procure general liability insurance for the

benefit of the George Units is belied by ~ 45 of the lease and lease amendment, the rights and

obligations of the lease "shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by

the respective successors and assigns of the parties hereto." (NYSCEF Doc. 53). Mr. Dishi's son,

who was deposed on behalf of Mr. Dishi, admitted the George Units owns the Premises and is the

landlord (NYSCEF Doc. 98 at 19-20). Mr. Dishi's sole argument for dismissal of the breach of

contract claim is belied by the lease terms and deposition testimony.

C. Thc·Gcorgc Units' Cross Motion

The George Units' cross motion for summary judgment is denied. Mr. Dishi's opposition

based on timeliness is without merit. The cross motion is a mirror image of Mr. Dishi' s motion

(Alonzo v Safe Harbors of the Hudson Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 104 AD3d 446,449 [1st Dept

2013]). However, since the Court granted summary judgment dismissing the third-party claims for

contribution, common law indemnification, and contractual indemnification, the George Units'

cross motion for summary judgment on those claims is denied. Likewise, the George Units has

156079/2019 MIRABAL POLANCO, PEDRO A. vs. GEORGE UNITS, LLC Page 4 of 5 Motion No. 002

[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/14/2025 04:49 P~ INDEX NO. 15 60 7 9/20 19 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07 / 14 /2025

Footnotes

[4] of 5 [* 4] failed to meet its primafacie burden on its breach of contract claim for failure to procure insurance. It did not produce any applicable insurance policies which fail to name it as an additional insured, nor has it produced any correspondence from Mr. Dishi ' s insurer denying coverage, nor has it produced testimony from Mr. Dishi or his representatives stating the required insurance was not procured (Dorset v 285 Madison Owner LLC, 214 AD3d 402 [1st Dept 2023]). 2 Accordingly, it is hereby, ORDERED that Avi Dishi ' s motion for summary judgment is granted to the extent that the George Units, LLC's contribution, common law indemnification, and contractual indemnification claims asserted against him are dismissed; and it is further ORDERED that Avi Dishi ' s motion for summary judgment is denied with respect to the George Units, LLC's breach of contract for fai lure to procure insurance claim; and it is further ORDERED that The George Units LLC's cross motion seeking summary judgment on its Third-Party Complaint asserted against Avi Dishi is denied; and it is further ORDERED that within ten days of entry, counsel for Third-Party Defendant Avi Dishi shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order, with notice of entry, on all parties via NYSCEF. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. /!1,dN V t\0111.,J.o J SC. . MARY V. ROSADO, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED x NON -FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED □ DENIED x GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE : INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE 2 Upon the proper presentation of evidence at trial, the George Units may show entitlement to a verdict in its favor on its failure to procure insurance claim. 156079/2019 MIRABAL POLANCO, PEDRO A. vs. GEORGE UNITS, LLC Page 5 of 5 Motion No. 002 [* 5] 5 of 5