The Housing Authority alleged the security system installed by Stonewall Contracting Corporation was inadequate and asked the court for an order dismissing the case or finding Stonewall liable according to the terms of an indemnification agreement.
Stonewall , on the other hand, sought to be released from the case.
The Bronx County Supreme Court denied the Housing Authority 's motion, but granted Stonewall 's request. When the Housing Authority appealed, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's decision in its entirety.
The AD1 found that Esteves' testimony, that none of the locks in the building worked, had been buttressed by a Housing Authority 's superintendent who confirmed "that there was a pervasive problem with the locking mechanisms on the doors throughout the project."
(And, although Esteves wasn't shot in the building, the AD1 didn't believe that negated the Housing Authority 's liability in this particular instance.)
As for the Housing Authority 's contractual indemnification claim, the AD1 didn't bite.
Stonewall had agreed to indemnify the Housing Authority for damages "resulting directly or indirectly from the Work of the Contractor, or his subcontractors, in their performance of this Contract," and there was no showing that the building's locks were inoperable because of Stonewall 's "work." In fact, vandalism -- an act excluded by the parties' contract -- was to blame.
And, finally, since Esteves and Stonewall were not in privity and the latter owed no duty to him, the AD1 concluded Stonewall was entitled to dismissal.
Was Esteves stoned by Stonewall ?
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Esteves v. City of New York