You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT’S...
,

PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT’S CONTRACTUAL INDEMNITY, COMMON-LAW INDEMNITY AND CONTRIBUTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property-owner’s indemnity claims against plaintiff’s employer (Sodexo) in this slip and fall case should have been dismissed. Defendant, as the property-owner, was responsible for the structural maintenance of the stairwell where plaintiff fell. The fall was not caused by debris on the stairwell, which was Sodexo’s only responsibility under its contract with defendant:

While defendant argued … that Sodexo’s responsibility to “provide basic housekeeping to all areas of operation during the course of the operating day” included the subject stairs, it is clear from the incident report and post incident/accident root cause analysis form that the staircase was clear of obstructions, objects, substances and debris of any sort. Accordingly, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether [the] accident was caused by Sodexo’s sole negligence, so Sodexo was entitled to summary judgment dismissing defendant’s cause of action for contractual indemnity. * * *

Defendant has not alleged any scenario under which it could be held vicariously or statutorily liable for any negligence of Sodexo. Accordingly, Sodexo was entitled to summary judgment dismissing defendant’s cause of action for common-law indemnification … .

… Inasmuch as defendant failed to raise an issue of fact as to Sodexo’s negligence, defendant is not entitled to contribution from Sodexo, and Sodexo’s motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant’s contribution cause of action should have been granted. O’Toole v Marist Coll., 2022 NY Slip Op 03560, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: Defendant property owner’s actions against plaintiff’s employer for contractual and common law indemnity and contribution should have been dismissed because plaintiff’s slip and fall was not the result of any act or omission on plaintiff’s employer’s part. The criteria for indemnity and contribution causes of action are explained.

 

You might also like
CLAIMANT’S BEHAVIOR, ALLEGED TO HAVE CONSTITUTED HARASSMENT AND INSUBORDINATION, DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF DISQUALIFYING MISCONDUCT, CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
RESPONDENT THREATENED SELF HARM AND WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; THE JUDGE DECLINED TO ISSUE A TEMPORARY “EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER” (ERPO) AND SET THE MATTER DOWN FOR A HEARING; SUBSEQUENTLY THE JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELED THE HEARING AND DISMISSED THE PETITION, ACTIONS FOR WHICH THE JUDGE HAD NO AUTHORITY; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
THE FAMILY COURT JUDGE HAD REPRESENTED MOTHER IN A RELATED CUSTODY MATTER YEARS BEFORE FATHER BROUGHT A PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY; THE JUDGE WAS STATUTORILY DISQUALIFIED FROM THE CURRENT PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT). ​
Summary Judgment Properly Granted to Hospital—Criteria for Hospital Liability for Treatment by a Non-Employee Explained
Reference to Statute Cured Any Omissions from the Description of the Elements of the Offense Charged in a Superior Court Information
Reversible Error to Allow Cross-Examination of Defendant About an Unrelated Prior Crime
REQUEST FOR NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF RESIDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, ALLOWING BOW AND ARROW HUNTING ON THEIR PROPERTY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON THE OPINION OF AN EXPERT WHO DID NOT FOLLOW THE IMPAIRMENT GUIDELINES BY REVIEWING THE UPDATED X-RAYS OF CLAIMANT’S HIP (THIRD 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

DESPITE THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT SAY WHICH OF TWO CRACKS IN THE PAVEMENT... CLAIMANT’S ATTORNEY WAS NOT AWARE OF THE THIRD DEPARTMENT’S UNIQUE...