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.
Michael F. McAllister, et al., plaintiffs, v. Construction Consultants L.I., Inc., defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent, et al., defendant; C. Glasser Construction Corp., third-party defendant-appellant.
Submitted—April 12, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., and a related third-party action, the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated September 24, 2009, which granted the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff for conditional summary judgment on its third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff for conditional summary judgment on its third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification is denied as premature.
“[A] party seeking contractual indemnification must prove itself free from negligence, because to the extent its negligence contributed to the accident, it cannot be indemnified therefor” (Cava Constr. Co., Inc. v. Gealtec Remodeling Corp., 58 AD3d 660, 662, citing General Obligations Law § 5–322.1; see Reynolds v. County of Westchester, 270 A.D.2d 473). Here, the Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff which was for conditional summary judgment on its third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification, as there are issues of fact as to whose negligence, if any, caused the plaintiff's accident (see Erickson v. Cross Ready Mix, Inc., 75 AD3d 519, 524; George v. Marshalls of MA, Inc., 61 AD3d 925, 930; Chun v. Ecco III Enters., 268 A.D.2d 454, 454–455). Under these circumstances, it was premature to reach the issue of contractual indemnification (see Erickson v. Cross Ready Mix, Inc., 75 AD3d at 524; George v. Marshalls of MA, Inc., 61 AD3d at 930; Chun v. Ecco III Enters., 268 A.D.2d at 454–455).
The third-party defendant's remaining contention is not properly before this Court.
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., FLORIO, LOTT and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2010–00311 (Index No. 23389 /04)
Decided: April 26, 2011
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)