You are here: / / DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL...
, , , ,

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED.

The Second Department, in a lawsuit stemming from the flooding of plaintiffs’ land, explained the differences between contribution and indemnification and noted that corporate officers may be personally liable for torts committed in their performance of corporate duties:

The plaintiffs commenced this action against the Village of East Hills after they experienced flooding on their property from rainwater. The plaintiffs asserted causes of action sounding in tort, alleging that the flooding resulted from the development of land near their property, which was authorized by the Village. The Village commenced a third-party action seeking indemnification and contribution against A to Z Transit Contracting Corp., the project manager that constructed the plaintiffs’ home, as well as its principal, David Ferdinand, architect Carl Majowka, who prepared plans for the construction of the plaintiffs’ home, and Scott Anderson, the principal of Scott Anderson Design, Inc., which performed landscaping work for the plaintiffs’ home. * * *

“[C]ontribution arises automatically when certain factors are present and [does] not requir[e] any kind of agreement between or among the wrongdoers'” … . ” Indemnity, on the other hand, arises out of a contract which may be express or may be implied in law “to prevent a result which is regarded as unjust or unsatisfactory”‘” … . “Further, “[w]here one is held liable solely on account of the negligence of another, indemnification, not contribution, principles apply to shift the entire liability to the one who was negligent.” . . . Conversely, where a party is held liable at least partially because of its own negligence, contribution against other culpable tort-feasors is the only available remedy'”… . “Whether indemnity or contribution applies depends not upon the parties’ designation but upon a careful analysis of the theory of recovery against each tort-feasor'”       * * *

Although “[c]orporate officers may not be held personally liable on contracts of their corporations, provided they did not purport to bind themselves individually under such contracts” … , “corporate officers may be held personally liable for torts committed in the performance of their corporate duties'” … . Eisman v Village of E. Hills. 2017 NY Slip Op 02775, 2nd Dept 4-12-17

NEGLIGENCE (DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED)/CONTRACT LAW (DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED)/CORPORATION LAW  (DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED)

You might also like
A SELLER OF REAL PROPERTY CAN REMAIN SILENT ABOUT DEFECTS IN THE PROPERTY BUT CANNOT TAKE STEPS TO THWART A BUYER’S DISCOVERY OF DEFECTS; HERE IT WAS ALLEGED THE SELLERS COVERED WATER DAMAGED WOOD WITH NEW PLYWOOD (SECOND DEPT).
Fall from Subway Platform Not the Result of Negligent Crowd Control
Defendant Should Have Been Advised of His Right to Be Heard in Resentencing Proceeding Pursuant to CPL 440.46
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE ON HIS LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS PREMATURE; PLAINTIFF NOT YET DEPOSED.
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FAILED TO TIE OFF HIS LANYARD, THAT FAILURE WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY; PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN A PLANK ON THE SCAFFOLD BROKE; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE PROOF THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
APPELLATE COUNSEL’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WAS DEFICIENT, NEW APPELLATE COUNSEL ASSIGNED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT NEVER CONSENTED TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SERVED ON THE PURPORTED SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL, WAS NEVER SERVED UPON DEFENDANT AND WAS THEREFORE NULLIFIED (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

APPLICATION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE LACK... DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PODIATRIC MALPRACTICE...