Linarello v. City University of New York
Decision Date | 06 April 2004 |
Docket Number | 3312. |
Citation | 6 A.D.3d 192,774 N.Y.S.2d 517,2004 NY Slip Op 02503 |
Parties | JOSEPH LINARELLO et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, and MORSE DIESEL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. JAGLER INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents, et al., Third-Party Defendant. (And a Second Third-Party Action.) |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
The indemnification clause in Jagler's contract with the site's owner, the State Dormitory Authority, invoked by Morse Diesel, provides that Jagler is to indemnify the owner and construction manager for any and all losses they sustain as a result of any or all injuries to any and all persons arising out of or occurring in connection with Jagler's work, excepting only injuries that arise out of faulty designs or the affirmative acts of the owner or construction manager committed with the intent to cause injury. Such clause indemnifies the owner and construction manager for their own negligence and therefore runs afoul of General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 (1). We reject Morse Diesel's argument that the indemnification clause, at least to the extent it does not require Jagler to indemnify Morse Diesel for its own negligence, is saved by another clause providing that "[e]ach and every provision of law and clause required by law to be inserted in the Contract shall be deemed to be inserted therein." Such language is not equivalent to language in the indemnification clause itself limiting a subcontractor's indemnification obligation "to the extent permitted by law" (see Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 786, 795 [1997]; Dutton v Pankow Bldrs., 296 AD2d 321 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 511 [2003]).
An indemnification clause that runs afoul of General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 (1) is enforceable in the event the indemnitee is found not negligent but nevertheless held vicariously liable to the plaintiff (see Itri, 89 NY2d at 795 n 5; Masciotta v Morse Diesel Intl., 303 AD2d 309, 312 [2003]). There being no finding that Morse Diesel was not negligent, the motion court should not have said, in denying Morse Diesel's motion for a conditional judgment of indemnification against Jagler, that the indemnification clause is unenforceable. Accordingly, we modify to clarify that the indemnification may be enforceable depending on the outcome of the main action.
Morse Diesel's motion for a conditional judgment of indemnification against Jagler (see Masciotta, 303 AD2d at 310) was properly denied on the ground that Morse Diesel failed to demonstrate its freedom from negligence (see Zeigler-Bonds v Structure Tone, 245 AD2d 80, 81 [1997]; Potter v M.A. Bongiovanni, Inc., 271 AD2d 918, 919 [2000]). As the motion court found, it appears that Morse Diesel had more than mere general supervisory authority, at least with respect to its subcontractor W. Property Resources, who was responsible for cleaning up debris and providing temporary protection around openings, and whose negligence in those respects may have contributed to the accident. In particular, there is evidence that Morse Diesel directed W. Property's work and supplied its equipment (compare Masciotta, 303 AD2d at 312; Buccini v 1568 Broadway Assoc., 250 AD2d 466, 468-469 [1998]).
While Jagler's egregious destruction of its records pertaining to the project, including those that the court order had...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sicilia v. City of New York, 2009 NY Slip Op 32832(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 12/4/2009)
...so long as the party to be indemnified is not negligent in producing the injury. Id.; see Linarello v. City Univ. of N.Y., 6 A.D.3d 192, 194, 774 N.Y.S.2d 517, 519 (1st Dept 2004). Therefore, an indemnification clause is generally enforced where liability arises only from the promisee's vic......
-
Gilbane Bldg. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...Gansevoort, LLC v. Peter Scalamandre & Sons, Inc., 102 A.D.3d 425, 961 N.Y.S.2d 3 (1st Dept.2013) and Linarello v. City Univ. of N.Y., 6 A.D.3d 192, 774 N.Y.S.2d 517 (1st Dept.2004), we find that the language in the “Additional Insured–By Written Contract” clause of the Liberty policy clear......
-
Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Jirsa Constr. Co.
...such terms insufficient to confer coverage under similar additional insured provisions. See Linarello v. City Univ. of New York , 6 A.D.3d 192, 195, 774 N.Y.S.2d 517, 520 (1st Dep't 2004) (finding that even if construction manager were third-party beneficiary of contracts requiring that it ......
-
Harco Constr., LLC v. First Mercury Ins. Co.
...52 ; AB Green Gansevoort, LLC v. Peter Scalamandre & Sons, Inc., 102 A.D.3d 425, 426, 961 N.Y.S.2d 3 ; Linarello v. City Univ. of N.Y., 6 A.D.3d 192, 195, 774 N.Y.S.2d 517 ), and that it was therefore not required to disclaim coverage as to 301–303, "as its denial of coverage was based on t......
-
S.b. 07-087 and the Enforceability of Indemnification Provisions in Colorado Construction Contracts - September 2007 - Construction Law
...whether the indemnitee under a broad form provision can recover damages from the indemnitor. Id. See Linarello v. City Univ., 774 N.Y.S.2d 517, 519 (N.Y.App.Div. 2004) ("An indemnification clause that runs afoul of [New York's anti-indemnity statute] is enforceable in the event the indemnit......
-
S.B. 07-087 AND THE ENFORCEABILITY OF INDEMNIFICATION PROVISIONS IN COLORADO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
...whether the indemnitee under a broad form provision can recover damages from the indemnitor. Id. See Linarello v. City Univ., 774 N.Y.S.2d 517, 519 (N.Y.App.Div. 2004) ("An indemnification clause that runs afoul of [New York's anti-indemnity statute] is enforceable in the event the indemnit......