You are here: / / Contractual-Indemnification Cross Claim by Building Owners Against the...
,

Contractual-Indemnification Cross Claim by Building Owners Against the Elevator Maintenance Company Should Not Have Been Dismissed—Relevant Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined the building owners failed to demonstrate they did not have constructive notice of the defect in the elevator door which caused plaintiff’s injury. The denial of the owners’ motion for summary judgment was therefore proper.  Supreme Court erred, however, when it denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the owners’ contractual-indemnification cross claim.  The contract with the elevator maintenance company, Dunwell, provided the company would indemnify the building owners for damages that did not arise solely and directly out of the owners’ negligence. Dunwell failed to raise a question of fact about whether the owners had actual knowledge of the defect and whether the injury arose “solely and directly” from the owners’ negligence. With regard to indemnification, the court wrote:

A party’s right to contractual indemnification depends upon the specific language of the relevant contract … . The promise to indemnify should not be found unless it can be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire agreement and the surrounding circumstances … . Under the full-service elevator maintenance contract at issue here, Dunwell assumed responsibility for the maintenance, repair, inspection, and servicing of the elevators, including the electrical systems or devices that operated the opening and closing of the elevator doors. Dunwell also agreed to indemnify the building defendants for any claim arising out of the performance of its work, regardless of whether it was negligent in its performance, unless the claim arose “solely and directly out of” the building defendants’ negligence. Goodlow v 724 Fifth Ave. Realty, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03501, 1st Dept 4-29-15

 

You might also like
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Action Against Governmental Entity Barred by Public Policy
PROTRACTED DELAY IN PLAINTIFFS’ SEEKING SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AFTER INFANT PLAINTIFF’S DEATH DID NOT REQUIRE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT, DEFENDANTS WERE IN POSSESSION OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS AND OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION AND THEREFORE WERE NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY; IN ADDITION, THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD WRONGFUL DEATH SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED UNDER THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
DISTRIBUTOR’S AND SELLER’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENT DESIGN ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY AND THE DANGER WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER THE CITY MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE ON THE GROUND IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION, THE PLAINTIFFS, YEARS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED, MOVED FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ALLEGE THE CITY CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; THE PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM AND THE CITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
No “Special Relationship” Between Plaintiff and City, City Not Liable for Shooting of the Plaintiff by a Civilian as Police Were Leaving the Scene of a Disturbance
DEFENSE ‘FALSE CONFESSION’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY, CONVICTION REVERSED; RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES NOT VIOLATED BY STATEMENTS IN THE VIDEO INTERROGATION THAT NONTESTIFYING WITNESSES HAD IMPLICATED THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK FAILED INCLUDE REFERENCED DOCUMENTS WITH ITS MOTION PAPERS AND THEREBY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT OR PLAINTIFF’S STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE HOLDER OR ASSIGNEE OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION TO RECORD THE MORTGAGE WAS BROUGHT; THE BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Family Court Should Not Have Denied Child’s Motion for the Issuance of... Questions of Fact Whether Hospital Liable for Independent Actions of Its Employees...