You are here: / / THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE STATED THAT THE CONTRACTOR...
, ,

THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE STATED THAT THE CONTRACTOR FOR WHOM THE INJURED PLAINTIFF WORKED WOULD HOLD THE “OWNER’S AGENT” HARMLESS AND DID NOT MENTION THE PROPERTY OWNER; THE CONTRACT MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED; THE PROPERTY OWNER’S INDEMNIFICATION ACTION AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the indemnification clause in the ladder-fall case must be strictly construed. The clause stated that the contractor for whom plaintiff worked, Collins, would hold harmless the “owner’s agent” but did not mention the property owner, LIC. Therefore LIC’s indemnification action against Collins should have been dismissed:

Plaintiff alleged common-law negligence, including failure to provide her with a safe ladder, and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 202, 240(1)-(3), and 241(6). * * *

LIC commenced this third-party action against Collins asserting that “Collins was obligated to provide plaintiff, its employee, with the necessary equipment to enable her to properly and safely perform her cleaning related duties” at the premises, and that plaintiff’s injuries were due to Collins’ failure to perform its duties under the contract and provide her with the proper tools, equipment, supervision, direction, and control. The third-party complaint also asserted that Collins agreed to indemnify LIC from any accidents, injuries, claims, or lawsuits arising out of the cleaning related services Collins provided at the premises. …

The indemnification provision states that Collins shall “hold harmless the OWNER’S AGENT from all claims by Tenants or others whose personnel or property may be damaged by [Collins], its operators, and including but not limited to the use of any of the required equipment or material.” Tishman is designated as the “owner’s agent” in the contract. LIC is neither identified nor included under the indemnification provision and the indemnification provision must be “strictly construed” … . Tavarez v LIC Dev. Owner, L.P., 2022 NY Slip Op 03339, First Dept 5-19-22

Practice Point: Indemnification clauses in contracts must be strictly construed. Here the contract said the contractor for whom the injured plaintiff worked would hold harmless the “owner’s agent” and did not mention the owner. Therefore the owner’s action against the contractor for indemnification should have been dismissed.

 

You might also like
IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT WAS EXEMPT FROM THE NYC SIDEWALK LAW (MAKING ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBLE FOR SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE) BECAUSE HIS PROPERTY IS OWNER-OCCUPIED; HOWEVER THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT IS LIABLE UNDER THE COMMON-LAW “SPECIAL USE” DOCTRINE; DEFENDANT USED THE SIDEWALK AS A DRIVEWAY FOR HIS GARAGE (FIRST DEPT).
THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE QUI TAM ACTION ALLEGING THE VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK FALSE CLAIMS ACT BY SETTING INTEREST RATES ON BONDS PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT). ​
UNSIGNED FORM INSUFFICIENT TO MAKE RESPONDENT THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S IRA (FIRST DEPT).
Even Though Length of Merging Lane Was a Factor in Accident, It Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Accident
Being Thrown from the Forks of a Forklift Is a Gravity Related Event Under Labor Law 240 (1)
THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY TERMINATED DEFENDANT’S SELF-REPRESENTATION DURING THE TRIAL BASED ON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR; THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY DECLINED TO EXCUSE A JUROR WHO, DURING DELIBERATIONS, SAID HE DID NOT WANT TO CONTINUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT EXCLUDED FROM A MATIERAL STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING WHEN THE TRIAL JUDGE DISCUSSED HIS MENTAL CONDITION WITH COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).
A DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM IS NOT ON THE MERITS AND HAS NO RES JUDICATA EFFECT (FIRST DEPT).
WRONGFUL BIRTH CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES UPON BIRTH OF THE CHILD, NOT UPON THE TERMINATION OF TREATMENT CULMINATING IN THE IMPLANTATION OF A FERTILIZED DONOR EGG.

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

PETITIONER-INMATE WAS DENIED DUE PROCEES WHEN HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO VIEW A VIDEO... SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REMOVED THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (IP’S)...