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
CLAIMANT COULD NOT SEEK COMPENSATION FOR PERIODIC FLOODING OF HIS LOT UNDER THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW; THERE WAS NO DE JURE TAKING BY THE CITY, AND THE CRITERIA FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION WERE NOT MET (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS SHOT INSIDE DEFENDANT’S BUILDING, DEFENDANT LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF AN ALLEGED BROKEN LOCK, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER AS OPPOSED TO AN INVITED GUEST, AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF WAS THE VICTIM OF A TARGETED ATTACK, DEFENDANT LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Conviction Reversed Because of Improper Cross-Examination by Prosecutor; Defendant Questioned About Boyfriend’s Criminal History and Her Employment History
AMENDMENT OF NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ALLEGE A DIFFERENT THEORY (CREATION OF THE DEFECT) IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED.
Eviction Based Upon Firearm and Drugs Found in Petitioner’s Apartment Affirmed Despite the Lack of Evidence Petitioner Was Aware the Items Were In the Apartment (Apparently They Were Brought Into the Apartment by Her Older Children) and Despite Petitioner’s Unblemished Record as a Tenant
PLAINTIFF SUED THE CITY AND POLICE UNDER 42 USC 1983 ALLEGING THE CITY AND POLICE HAD AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICY OR PRACTICE ALLOWING POLICE OFFICERS TO FILE FALSE CHARGES, TESTIFY FALSELY AND FALSIFY EVIDENCE WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO RECORDS OF SIMILAR COMPLAINTS OR INVESTIGATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CPLR DISCOVERY PROVISIONS AND WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO A FOIL REQUEST (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A VALID NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT INSURANCE BROKER FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE EXCESS CARRIER OF A CLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF; IT WAS ALLEGED THAT PLAINTIFF ROUTINELY NOTIFIED DEFENDANT BROKER OF ANY CLAIMS AND DEFENDANT BROKER ROUTINELY NOTIFIED THE AFFECTED CARRIERS, GIVING RISE TO A DUTY TO DO SO (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT GYM DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN ACCUMULATION OF DUST ON THE BASKETBALL COURT FLOOR WAS INHERENT IN THE SPORT OR OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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 © 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)...