Golden Stone Trading, Inc., plaintiff, v Wayne Electro

Systems, Inc., etc., respondent, Affiliated Central, Inc.,

etc., appellant, et al., defendants. (Index No. 7260/06)



2007-03289



SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND

DEPARTMENT



2007 NY Slip Op 8993; 45 A.D.3d 638; 845 N.Y.S.2d 823; 2007

N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11856





November 13, 2007, Decided



NOTICE:



THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF

THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION.    THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO

REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.





COUNSEL: Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Kenneth

Kirschenbaum of counsel), for appellant.



Kral, Clerkin, Redmond, Ryan, Perry & Girvan, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Nicole

Licata-McCord of counsel), for respondent.



JUDGES: STEPHEN G. CRANE, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, ROBERT A. LIFSON, EDWARD D.

CARNI, JJ. CRANE, J.P., FLORIO, LIFSON and CARNI, JJ., concur.



OPINION



DECISION & ORDER



In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the

defendant Affiliated Central, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme 

Court,

Queens County (Dorsa, J.), entered March 20, 2007, which denied its motion for

summary judgment on its cross claim for indemnification  against the defendant

Wayne Electro Systems, Inc.



ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion of the

defendant Affiliated Central, Inc., for summary judgment on its cross claim is

granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a

hearing to fix the appellant's costs of the defense of this action, including 

a

reasonable attorney's fee.



The defendant Wayne Electro Systems, Inc. (hereinafter Wayne), entered into

an agreement with the plaintiff on January 12, 2006, to install and service an

alarm system at 102-17 44th Avenue in Corona, New York (hereinafter the

property). The defendant Affiliated Central, Inc. (hereinafter Affiliated),

provided alarm monitoring services under a separate agreement it entered into

with Wayne (hereinafter the dealer agreement). The dealer agreement contained 

an

indemnity clause by which Wayne agreed to fully indemnify Affiliated and hold 

it

harmless. The property allegedly was burglarized on January 23, 2006, as a

result of which the plaintiff commenced this  action against, among others,

Wayne and Affiliated to recover damages for breach of contract. In its answer,

Affiliated asserted, inter alia, a cross claim against Wayne based on the

indemnification provision under the dealer agreement and moved for summary

judgment on that cross claim. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We reverse.



Affiliated established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of

law (see Cox v Kingsboro Med. Group, 88 NY2d 904, 906, 669 N.E.2d 817, 646

N.Y.S.2d 659; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853, 476 

N.E.2d

642, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316) through the proof adduced on its motion, which included

the affidavit of its vice president appending, inter alia, copies of the 

dealer

agreement and the agreement between the plaintiff and Wayne. In opposition,

Wayne failed to raise a triable issue of fact warranting the denial of summary

judgment (see 9394 LLC v Farris, 10 AD3d 708, 710-711, 782 N.Y.S.2d 281) and

failed to demonstrate anything more than the "mere hope" (Companion Life Ins.

Co. of N.Y. v All State Abstract Corp., 35 AD3d 519, 521, 829 N.Y.S.2d 536) 

that

additional discovery would reveal facts sufficient to defeat Affiliated's 

motion

(see Min Whan Ock v City of New York, 34 AD3d 542, 543, 824 N.Y.S.2d 651).



To the extent that the Supreme Court's conclusion was predicated on General

Obligations Law § 5-322.1, it was error because that provision does not govern

the dealer agreement herein (see Goll v ABC, Inc., 10 AD3d 672, 783 N.Y.S.2d 

599

; Auburn Steel Co. Inc. v Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 158 AD2d 938, 551 N.Y.S.2d

101; cf. Tate v Clancy-Cullen Stor. Co., 178 AD2d 292, 293-295, 577 N.Y.S.2d 

377

; Appliance Assoc. v Dyce-Lymen Sprinkler Co., 123 AD2d 512, 513, 507 N.Y.S.2d

104; Failla v A.F.A. Protective Sys., 139 AD2d 693, 527 N.Y.S.2d 448; El 

Chami v

Automatic Burglar Alarm Corp., 106 Misc 2d 559, 561-562, 434 N.Y.S.2d 330).



We remit this matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing to

determine the amount of the appellant's costs of defense of this action,

including a reasonable attorney's fee, for which Wayne is responsible under 

the

indemnification provision of the dealer agreement.



CRANE, J.P., FLORIO, LIFSON and CARNI, JJ., concur.