| Campbell v HEI Hospitality, LLC |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03262 [72 AD3d 860] |
| April 20, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Terry Campbell, Appellant, v HEI Hospitality, LLC, et al.,Respondents, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Melito & Adolfsen, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Steven I. Lewbel and S. Dwight Stephens ofcounsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much ofan order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered February 13, 2009, asgranted that branch of the motion of the defendants HEI Hospitality, LLC, Marriott International,Inc., and Marriott Hunt Valley Inn which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaintinsofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
On or about July 16, 2006, the plaintiff was a guest at the Marriott Hunt Valley Inn, a hotelowned and operated by the defendants HEI Hospitality, LLC, Marriott International, Inc., andMarriott Hunt Valley Inn (hereinafter collectively the Hotel defendants). The plaintiff allegedlysustained injuries when, in a corridor of the hotel, he collided with the defendant MaxShemehda, who was carrying three cups of scalding hot coffee, two of which were uncovered,and the coffee spilled on the plaintiff. Shemehda was a lifeguard at the hotel's pool, and he wasemployed not by the Hotel defendants, but by nonparty independent contractor Sunset PoolManagement, Inc., which, pursuant to an agreement with the Hotel defendants, managed andsupervised operations at the hotel pool. After the plaintiff commenced this action to recoverdamages for personal injuries and the defendants joined issue, the Hotel defendants moved, interalia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. In theorder appealed from, the Supreme Court granted that branch of the motion. We affirm the orderinsofar as appealed from.
As a general rule, one who hires an independent contractor may not be held liable for theindependent contractor's negligent acts (see Kleeman v Rheingold, 81 NY2d 270, 273[1993]; Sampson v Contillo, 55AD3d 588, 590 [2008]; Stagno v143-50 Hoover Owners Corp., 48 AD3d 548, 549 [2008]; Sandra M. v St. Luke's Roosevelt Hosp.Ctr., 33 AD3d 875, 877 [2006]). The Hotel defendants established, prima facie, thatShemehda was an independent contractor, and that the so-called "independent contractor rule"applied (Lofstad v S & R Fisheries,Inc., 45 AD3d 739, 743 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]). In opposition to theHotel defendants' prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment [*2]as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of factas to whether any exception to the so-called "independent contractor rule" applied to the facts ofthis case (id.; see Feliberty v Damon, 72 NY2d 112, 118 [1988]; Alvarez vProspect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Chorostecka v Kaczor, 6 AD3d 643, 644 [2004]; Metling vPunia & Marx, 303 AD2d 386, 388 [2003]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properlygranted that branch of the Hotel defendants' motion which was for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Fisher, J.P., Dillon, Dickerson andBelen, JJ., concur.