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
MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT DID NOT INCLUDE FACTS DEMONSTRATING THE ARREST OF DEFENDANT’S BROTHER WAS AUTHORIZED, THEREFORE THE COMPLAINT CHARGING DEFENDANT WITH RESISTING ARREST AND OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE.
SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENT’S STATUTORY ACTIONS AGAINST THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S OFFICE OF PUPIL TRANSPORTATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE AUTISTIC SIX-YEAR-OLD STUDENT WAS TRANSPORTED TO SCHOOL ON A FULL-SIZED BUS, GENERATING NINE INCIDENT REPORTS IN A SIX-WEEK PERIOD, INSTEAD OF THE MINI-BUS REQUIRED BY THE INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TAKEN A YEAR BEFORE THE SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY THE PHOTO ACCURATELY AND FAIRLY DEPICTED THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK AT THE TIME OF THE FALL WAS SUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
12 TO 18 INCH FALL SUPPORTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1).
PLAINTIFF’S SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE NYPD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD ROUTINELY PASSED PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMS IN THE PAST, THE NYPD FOUND HIM PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNFIT (FIRST DEPT).
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TRIP AND FALL IN TREE WELL NEAR THE SIDEWALK, THE TREE WELL IS NOT UNDER THE PROPERTY OWNER’S CONTROL (FIRST DEPT).
No Constructive Notice of Icy Condition/Allegation Defendant Created the Condition Based on Speculation
THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE CO-DEFENDANT’S INTENT TO STAB THE VICTIM WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (FIRST 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 © 2025 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)...