SACS Appellate Group Rebuffs Co-Defendants' Efforts to Transform a Security Contract into an Insurance Contract

In Adetola Atanda v. Linden Plaza Preservation, L.P., et al., Index No. 9432/14 (Sup. Ct. Kings. Co. 2017) (Vaughn, J.), the plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on ice while exiting the apartment complex (the “Premises”) where she lived.  Linden Plaza (“Linden”) owned the complex and R.Y. Management (“R.Y.”) managed the Premises.  Madison Security Group (“Madison”), our client, provided security services on the Premises pursuant to a contract with Linden and R.Y.  The plaintiff commenced an action against Linden and R.Y., who then sought contractual indemnification from Madison.  After the close of trial, we successfully argued that the plain language of the contract, the testimony elicited during the proceedings, and the jury’s apportionment of fault clearly established that Linden and R.Y. were not entitled to indemnification under the parties’ agreement.  While our motion was pending, the matter settled with nominal nuisance contribution from our client.  The briefing was principally handled by Timothy Capowski and Jonathan Shaub.