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
Question of Fact Whether Defendant’s Snow Removal Efforts Created Dangerous Condition (Black Ice)
THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION WAS AFFIRMED; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE PROOF THE JUVENILE KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS AGGRAVATED UNLICENSED OPERATION CASE, TESTIMONY THAT NOTICE OF THE REVOCATION OF DEFENDANT’S DRIVER’S LICENSE WAS MAILED TO HIM VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY WAS NOT BASED UPON FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE (SECOND DEPT). ​
STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST DURING THE FOUR YEARS UNTIL THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS REFILED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ADD THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO PREJUDICE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER; IN ADDITION TO DEFENDANT’S MEETING THE CRITERIA, THE PEOPLE APPARENTLY LOST EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE BEFORE OFFERING A PLEA DEAL (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’ LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Conversion Action Can Not Be Based Upon Funds Which Came Into Party’s Possession Lawfully (Down Payment)

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

“Pertinent to Litigation” Privilege for Statements Made by an Attorney... No Appeal Lies from a Vacated Order