Soto v. Alert No. 1 Alarm Systems, Inc.

• Decision Date: 15 May 2000
• Citation: 272 A.D.2d 466,707 N.Y.S.2d 507
• Parties: WALDO SOTO et al., Plaintiffs,<BR>v.<BR>ALERT NO. 1 ALARM SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Defendant.<BR>GRACIE SQUARE RIVER CORP., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

272 A.D.2d 466

707 N.Y.S.2d 507

WALDO SOTO et al., Plaintiffs,

v. ALERT NO. 1 ALARM SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Defendant.GRACIE SQUARE RIVER CORP., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

05-15-2000

Bracken, J. P., O'Brien, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is modified by (1) deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the defendant third-party plaintiff's claim for common-law indemnification, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion and dismissing that claim for common-law indemnification, and (2) deleting the provision thereof granting the cross motion for conditional summary judgment on the issue of contractual indemnification and an award of an attorney's fee, and substituting therefor a provision denying the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the appellant.

On June 12, 1992, the defendant third-party plaintiff Alert No. 1 Alarm Systems, Inc. (hereinafter Alert), entered into an agreement to install and maintain an alarm system at premises owned by the third-party defendant Gracie Square River Corp. (hereinafter Gracie Square). Alert claims that pursuant to this agreement, it was also required to install and maintain an "automatic hydraulic gate opening system" at the premises. An indemnification clause included in the contract required Gracie Square to indemnify Alert against "all claims" alleged to have been caused by Alert's "performance or failure to perform its obligations under this agreement".

In April 1995, Gracie Square employee Waldo Soto was injured when the automatic gate allegedly closed on his hand. After the accident, Soto and his wife commenced this personal injury against Alert, alleging that it negligently installed, operated, and maintained the gate. Alert then commenced a third-party action against Gracie Square, seeking both common-law and contractual indemnification. Gracie Square subsequently moved for summary judgment, contending that the third-party action was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, because Soto had not suffered a "grave injury", and the indemnification clause of the agreement was unenforceable. Alert then cross-moved for conditional summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim, and the Supreme Court granted its cross motion, finding that the indemnification clause encompassed the plaintiffs' allegations...