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
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PEBBLE-SIZED DEBRIS WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF AND ALLEGEDLY SERIOUSLY INJURED HIS EYE GAVE RISE TO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (FIRST DEPT).
EVICTION WAS TOO SEVERE A PENALTY FOR PETITIONER’S MOMENTARY LOSS OF CONTROL DURING WHICH SHE STRUCK A NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY EMPLOYEE (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT SEX OFFENDER VIOLATED RULES IMPOSED BY THE “STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION” (SIST) REGIMEN, HE DID NOT EXHIBIT ANY DANGEROUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; THEREFORE RESPONDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFINED AND SHOULD BE RELEASED AND MANAGED UNDER “SIST” (FIRST DEPT).
THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL DIRECTING THE FILING OF A NOTE OF ISSUE DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED ON CHILDREN’S CONSENT (FIRST DEPT).
Accident Unforeseeable as a Matter of Law
THE 2022 AMENDMENT TO DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 111 REQUIRING CONSENT TO ADOPTION BY A NONMARITAL FATHER WHO HAS ACKNOWLEDGED PATERNITY APPLIES RETROATIVELY; TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).​
Safety Device Requirement in Industrial Code Was Specific Enough to Support Labor Law 241(6) Action Based Upon the Absence of a Safety Guard on a Tile Grinder

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)...