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 HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT.
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT COMMITTED BURGLARY; DEFENDANT, THROUGH AN UNLOCKED DOOR, ENTERED A VESTIBULE THAT WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO USE BY TENANTS.
THE WRONG MAILING DATE IN AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE CANNOT BE CORRECTED IN AN AMENDED AFFIDAVIT; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE ALLEGATIONS WERE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL TO REACH DEFENDANT LLC MEMBER PERSONALLY FOR BREACH OF THE HOUSING MERCHANT IMPLIED WARRANTY OBLIGATIONS; AND DEFENDANT COULD BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENT REPAIRS UNDER A HOME RENOVATION CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
BURGLARY AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED OFFENSE FIRST DEGREE IS NOT A REGISTERABLE OFFENSE UNDER SORA; A SEX OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION IS APPEALABLE WHEN THE ERROR IS NOT PRESERVED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DENTISTS’ FEE-SPLITTING AGREEMENT VIOLATED THE EDUCATION LAW; A COURT WILL NOT ENFORCE AN ILLEGAL CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE PERSONAL-SERVICE-OF-A-CLAIM REQUIREMENT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT FOR ACTIONS SEEKING DAMAGES FOR THE STATE’S APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY; HERE SERVICE BY REGULAR FIRST-CLASS MAIL WAS NOT A JURIDICTIONAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED TO INJURE PLAINTIFF IN A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION WITH OTHERS, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED ONLY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT BY THE DEFENDANT, THE NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (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...