Juarez v. Rye Depot Plaza, LLC, 140 A.D.3d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · Go Syfert
Juarez v. Rye Depot Plaza, LLC, 140 A.D.3d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mendez v. Bank of Am., N.A.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
The clause in the terms and conditions stating that partial or complete performance constitutes agreement does not express an intent that the terms will be applied retroactively ( see Perez Juarez v Rye Depot Plaza, LLC , 140 AD3d 464, 465 [1st Dept 2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cacanoski v. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Superior, however, failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the third-party complaint, as it failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the parties intended to apply the indemnification provision of the subcontract retroactively (cf. Perez Juarez v Rye Depot Plaza, LLC, 140 AD3d 464, 465 [2016]; Mikulski v Adam R.
discussed Cited "see" Suazo v. 501 Madison-Sutton LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
The post-accident agreement is "devoid of any language demonstrating an intention by the parties that it be retroactively applied" ( Temmel v 1515 Broadway Assoc., L.P. , 18 AD3d 364, 365 [1st Dept 2005]; see Perez Juarez v Rye Depot Plaza, LLC , 140 AD3d 464, 465 [1st Dept 2016]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Daniel Perez Juarez, Plaintiff,
v.
Rye Depot Plaza, LLC, Et Al., Defendants; Rye Depot Plaza, LLC, Et Al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GFX Site Development, Inc., Doing Business as Groundseffects Landscaping, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent
1410 303069/09.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 7, 2016.
140 A.D.3d 464
Friedman, Renwick, Andrias, Gische, Webber.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered April 1, 2015, which denied defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ (Rye and Imajan) motion for summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against third-party defendant (GFX), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Rye and Imajan failed to establish prima facie either that GFX executed the indemnification agreement before plaintiff’s accident or that the agreement was intended to be retroactive (see Mikulski v Adam R. West, Inc., 78 AD3d 910 [2d Dept 2010]). Neither Rye’s principal nor GFX’s principal recalled when the undated agreement was signed. Nor does the conclusory affidavit by the controller of Imajan’s manager establish the date on which the agreement was signed. As to retroactivity, the agreement contains no “express words or necessary implication [by which] it clearly appears to be the parties’ intention to include past obligations” (see Mikulski, 78 AD3d at 911 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Gische and Webber, JJ.