You are here: / / Criteria for Common Law Indemnification Explained (Not Met Here)—Property...
,

Criteria for Common Law Indemnification Explained (Not Met Here)—Property Owner Could Not Seek Indemnification from Independent Contractor Re: Dangerous Condition on the Property

In the context of a personal injury action based upon a dangerous condition, the Second Department explained the criteria for common law indemnification.  Here the dangerous condition was on property built by an independent contractor, Ambrosio, and owned by Wincoma.  Wincoma did not demonstrate it met the criteria for seeking indemnification from Ambrosio:

“The principle of common-law, or implied, indemnification permits one who has been compelled to pay for the wrong of another to recover from the wrongdoer the damages it paid to the injured party” … . “If . . . an injury can be attributed solely to negligent performance or nonperformance of an act solely within the province of [a] contractor, then the contractor may be held liable for indemnification to an owner” … . A party that has actually participated in the wrongdoing is not entitled to indemnification … .

Here, the record demonstrates that Wincoma, the owner of the property where the subject incident occurred, had actual and constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition which caused the plaintiff’s injuries … . Moreover, the record shows that the injury cannot be attributed solely to the negligent performance or non-performance of an act solely within the province of Ambrosio, which was an independent contractor … . Ambrosio built the subject structure approximately one year prior to the accident, the structure was built pursuant to specifications provided by Wincoma, and the record shows that those specifications were not “patently defective” … . Consequently, Wincoma could not be entitled to common-law indemnification from Ambrosio for any damages that may be assessed against it in this action … . Rappel v Wincoma Homeowners Assn, 2015 NY Slip Op 01434, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
THE ORDER ISSUED AFTER A TRAVERSE HEARING FINDING DEFENDANTS WERE NOT PROPERLY SERVED IS APPEALABLE PURSUANT TO CPLR 5501 (C); THE ORDER BRINGS UP FOR APPEAL WHETHER THE TRAVERSE HEARING WAS NECESSARY; THE MAJORITY C0NCLUDED THE HEARING WAS NOT NECESSARY; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION FOR A 1991 MURDER PROPERLY GRANTED BASED IN PART ON SUBSEQUENT SERIOUS MISCONDUCT BY ONE OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATORS, CRITERIA FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED AND CLEANED REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
INSURER NOT OBLIGATED TO SATISFY JUDGMENT AGAINST ITS INSURED; INJURED PARTY FAILED TO TIMELY NOTIFY INSURER OF THE FIRE WHICH CAUSED THE DAMAGE.
SUPREME COURT, IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION, HAD USED CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN CHANGED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING UNDER THE CURRENT LAW (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

First Responder, a NYC Police Officer, Was Entitled to the World Trade Center... Lease Provision Allowing the Landlord to Recover Attorney’s Fees in an...