You are here: / / SUIT SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION FOR A SETTLEMENT PAID TO DEFENDANT’S...

SUIT SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION FOR A SETTLEMENT PAID TO DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RELEVANT LAW EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the suit by a general contractor (Aragon) and property lessee seeking indemnification for a settlement paid to defendant subcontractor’s (Port Richmond’s) injured employee (Brown), as well as the suit alleging the failure to procure insurance, should not have been dismissed. The court explained the relevant indemnification law:

It is well settled that “where an indemnitor does not receive notice of an action settled by the indemnitee, in order to recover reimbursement [for the settlement], [the indemnitee] must establish that [it] would have been liable and that there was no good defense to the liability”… . Conversely, “[w]here the indemnitor does receive notice of the claim against the indemnitee, . . . the general rule is that the indemnitor will be bound by any reasonable good faith settlement the indemnitee might thereafter make”… . As to notice, ” [i]t is sufficient that the party against whom ultimate liability is claimed is fully and fairly informed of the claim and that the action is pending with full opportunity to defend or to participate in the defense'” … . …

Applying these principles, we find that the motion court improperly dismissed the indemnification claim. The subcontract plainly requires indemnification for claims arising out of Port Richmond’s work on the construction project. On appeal, Port Richmond does not argue that Brown’s injuries did not arise from its work. Instead, Port Richmond contends that because the underlying action was dismissed against Aragon, plaintiffs cannot establish Aragon’s liability for those injuries. However, where notice is given, the indemnitee need not establish its own liability for the underlying claim … . There is no dispute that Port Richmond had notice of the underlying action as well as the settlement negotiations in this Court.  Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v Tower Natl. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 01401, Second Dept 3-1-18

INSURANCE LAW (SUIT SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION FOR A SETTLEMENT PAID TO DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RELEVANT LAW EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/INDEMNIFICATION (INSURANCE LAW, SUIT SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION FOR A SETTLEMENT PAID TO DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RELEVANT LAW EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/SETTLEMENTS (INSURANCE LAW, INDEMNIFICATION, (SUIT SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION FOR A SETTLEMENT PAID TO DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RELEVANT LAW EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
APPELLANT, 16, IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENY PROCEEDING, WAS BEING INTERROGATED ABOUT A ROBBERY WHEN HE DRANK WATER FROM A DISPOSABLE CUP; THE INTERROGATING OFFICER SENT THE CUP FOR DNA ANALYSIS; THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATORY PURPOSE FOR THE DNA COLLECTION; APPELLANT’S MOTION TO EXPUNGE THE DNA EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE STANDING ON INSTALLED REBAR WHICH WOBBLED AS A CO-WORKER HANDED HIM A PIECE OF REBAR; HE DROPPED THE REBAR BUT GRABBED IT BEFORE IT FELL ANY FURTHER, INJURING HIS SHOULDER; INJURY WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT AN OBJECT FROM FALLING IS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT).
WHEN THE CONTRACTOR’S EMPLOYEE ARRIVED TO CLEAN THE TANK, THE OPENING WAS COVERED ONLY BY CARDBOARD; AFTER FINISHING THE WORK, THE EMPLOYEE REPLACED THE CARDBOARD COVER; PLAINTIFF SUBSEQUENTLY STEPPED ON THE CARDBOARD AND FELL INTO THE TANK; THE CONTRACTOR’S EMPLOYEE DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WITHIN THE MEANING OF ESPINAL, 98 NY2D 140 (FIRST DEPT).
TAKING IN AIRBNB CUSTOMERS IN A RENT-STABILIZED APARTMENT VIOLATED THE RENT STABILIZATION CODE (NYC), LESSOR ENTITLED TO TERMINATE THE ELDERLY 40-YEAR TENANT’S LEASE.
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS SUIT BY A NEW JERSEY CASINO TO RECOVER DEFENDANT’S GAMBLING DEBT, DEFENDANT RAISED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ALLEGING PLAINTIFF CASINO VIOLATED PROVISIONS OF NEW JERSEY’S CASINO CONTROL ACT (CCA); THE CONTROLLING AGENCY, THE CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION (CCC), HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER THOSE COMPLAINTS; THE COMPLAINTS MUST BE RULED ON BEFORE THE COURT CAN CONSIDER PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).
EVEN WHERE, AS HERE, THE REVIEWING COURT WOULD HAVE DECIDED THE MATTER DIFFERENTLY, THE COURT MUST AFFIRM AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY’S RULING WHICH HAS A RATIONAL BASIS; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE PROOF PETITIONER RESIDED WITH HIS BROTHER IN THE MITCHELL-LAMA APARTMENT WAS SUFFICIENT AND PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO SUCCESSION RIGHTS (FIRST DEPT).
Falling Block Not Shown to Be Related to the Failure of a Safety Device—Labor Law 240(1) Did Not Apply

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

COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS... THE LAWSUIT ALLEGED ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS, WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE,...