You are here: / / Indemnification Clause in Lease/Alteration Agreements Unenforceable—No...
, ,

Indemnification Clause in Lease/Alteration Agreements Unenforceable—No Exception for Lessor’s Negligence

The Second Department determined an indemnification clause in lease/alteration agreements was unenforceable because it was not limited to the lessee’s acts or omissions and because it did not make exceptions for the lessor’s negligence (General Obligations Law 5-321):

Broad indemnification provisions … which are not limited to the lessee’s acts or omissions, and which fail to make exceptions for the lessor’s own negligence, are unenforceable pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-321 where [the relevant agreements] were not negotiated at arm’s length by two sophisticated business entities… . Nolasco v Soho Plaza Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 05164, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

You might also like
LIFE ESTATES IN A CONDOMINIUM AND COOPERATIVE APARTMENT DID NOT DIMINISH VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES.
IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF BEER DISTRIBUTORS AND DEFENDANT BEER COMPANY, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT SECTION 55-C(4), WHICH PROHIBITS TERMINATION OF A DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, APPLIES TO BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL CONTRACTS; THE COURT WENT ON TO FIND THAT THE COMPLAINT, WHICH WAS BASED ON AN ORAL DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF SECTION 55-C(4) (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment—Plaintiff Demonstrated Defendant’s Negligence and Plaintiff’s Freedom from Comparative Fault
POLICE OFFICER HAD AN OBJECTIVE, CREDIBLE REASON FOR APPROACHING DEFENDANT IN HER CAR, EVIDENCE OF DWI SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.
Defendant Did Not Have the Right to Be Present During Discussion of Exclusion of a Sworn Juror
DENIAL OF A PETITION TO MODIFY A SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK ASSESSMENT IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT, PETITION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE MEANING OF ‘SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE’ SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A DETERMINATION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE POLICE TESTIMONY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING WAS NOT WORTHY OF BELIEF; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT; INDICTMENT 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

Co-Tenants of Dog Owner Can Be Strictly Liable for Harboring a Dog with Vicious... Quantum Meruit and Account Stated Causes of Action Should Have Been Dismissed—Quantum...