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
THE PROBATION CONDITION PROHIBITING DEFENDANT FROM USING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WAS NOT WARRANTED BY THE UNDERLYING CONVICTION; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL AND SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
REQUEST FOR DNA PATERNITY TEST PROPERLY DENIED, NOT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST.
THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST PLAINTIFF FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS, FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
Continuous Representation Doctrine Did Not Toll the Statute of Limitations for the Legal Malpractice Cause of Action/Fraud, Excessive Fees and Unjust Enrichment Causes of Actions Were Not Duplicative of the Legal Malpractice Cause of Action/Punitive Damages Claim Properly Pled
CONTRACT WAS AMBIGUOUS CONCERNING WHETHER PLAINTIFF BROKER WAS ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Liquor Authority Properly Complied with the Requirements for Issuing a Liquor License When Three or More Licensed Premises Are Located Within 500 Feet
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST PLAINTIFF ON A SUBWAY FOR A TRANSIT VIOLATION, THE CONCURRENCE CALLED INTO QUESTION THE ‘TRANSIT DATABASE’ WHICH PROBABLY INCLUDES PERSONS WHOSE CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE SEALED AND DISMISSED, THE DATABASE DOES NOT PROVIDE A DISTINCT BASIS FOR ARREST (FIRST DEPT).
FAMILY COURT ACT SECTION 1028 REQUIRES THAT THE COURT EXPEDITE A HEARING ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO HAVE HER CHILDREN RETURNED TO HER; HERE THE HEARING WAS STARTED WITHIN THREE DAYS OF THE APPLICATION AS REQUIRED BUT WAS THEREAFTER ADJOURNED SEVERAL TIMES OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS, A VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE (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)...