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.
John VECCHIO, et al., plaintiffs, v. MILLER PLACE REALTY, LLC, et al., respondents, Racanelli Construction Company, Inc., defendant third-party plaintiff; Dame Contracting, Inc., third-party defendant-appellant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated May 30, 2007, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Miller Place Realty, LLC, and NB Realty, LLC, which was for summary judgment on their cross claim for contractual indemnification insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion of the defendants Miller Place Realty, LLC, and NB Realty, LLC, which was for summary judgment on their cross claim for contractual indemnification insofar as asserted against the third-party defendant is denied.
The defendants Miller Place Realty, LLC, and NB Realty, LLC (hereinafter the owners), failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their cross claim for contractual indemnification against the third-party defendant, Dame Contracting, Inc., the injured plaintiff's employer. The subject indemnification clause does not cover the owners for injuries resulting from, inter alia, their own negligence or the negligence of the defendant third-party plaintiff, Racanelli Construction Company, Inc. (hereinafter the general contractor). Although the owners established as a matter of law that they were not negligent in causing the plaintiff's injury (see McComish v. Luciano's Italian Rest., 56 A.D.3d 534, 868 N.Y.S.2d 79; Valenti v. 400 Carlls Path Realty Corp., 52 A.D.3d 696, 861 N.Y.S.2d 357; Lindquist v. C & C Landscape Contrs., Inc., 38 A.D.3d 616, 831 N.Y.S.2d 523), they failed to establish as a matter of law that the negligence of the general contractor did not contribute to the accident. Accordingly, their motion for summary judgment should have been denied (see Barnes v. DeFoe/Halmar, 271 A.D.2d 387, 705 N.Y.S.2d 628; Delmar v. TerraStruct Corp., 249 A.D.2d 259, 670 N.Y.S.2d 915).
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: April 07, 2009
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)