Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Keith ALESIUS, et al., plaintiffs, v. GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL MEDICAL AND DIALYSIS CENTER, et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs-appellants; H.T. Steel Erectors, Inc., third-party defendant-respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), dated July 2, 2004, as granted the cross motion of the third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is denied, and the third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification is reinstated.
Pursuant to General Obligation Law § 5-322.1, a clause in a construction contract which purports to indemnify a party for its own negligence is void (see Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 786, 658 N.Y.S.2d 903, 680 N.E.2d 1200; Caruso v. Inhilco, Inc., 2 A.D.3d 662, 768 N.Y.S.2d 639; Carriere v. Whiting Turner Contr., 299 A.D.2d 509, 750 N.Y.S.2d 633), but the clause may nevertheless be enforced where the party to be indemnified is found to be free of any negligence (see Brown v. Two Exch. Plaza Partners, 76 N.Y.2d 172, 556 N.Y.S.2d 991, 556 N.E.2d 430; Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., supra ). The third-party defendant failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification should have been denied (see Brennan v. R.C. Dolner, Inc., 14 A.D.3d 639, 789 N.Y.S.2d 312; Marano v. Commander Elec., Inc., 12 A.D.3d 571, 785 N.Y.S.2d 109; Kozerski v. Deer Run Homeowners Assn., 217 A.D.2d 841, 629 N.Y.S.2d 518; see also Parelli v. Talbot Store, 308 A.D.2d 569, 765 N.Y.S.2d 372). There are triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant third-party-plaintiff was negligent and, if so, whether its negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's alleged injuries, based upon the conflicting deposition testimony regarding the condition of the floor of the job site at the time of the accident.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 21, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)