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
AN IN DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL PRIORITY ISSUES RAISED IN A CUSTODY MATTER REGARDING A NAVAJO CHILD, BORN TO A NAVAJO MOTHER IN NEW MEXICO, LIVING ON THE NAVAJO NATION RESERVATION IN UTAH, WITH FATHER RESIDING IN NEW YORK (THIRD DEPT).
THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).
Road Washout Was Due to a Highway Design Issue for Which Adequate Remedial Planning Had Been Made—The Washout Was Not, Therefore, Caused by a Highway Maintenance Deficiency to Which the Negligence Standard Applies—State Entitled to Qualified Immunity Re: a Vehicle Accident Caused by a Sinkhole
Misbehavior Report Did Not Supply Sufficient Notice of Alleged Offense
PETITIONER-INMATE, WHO WAS CONDUCTING A CLASS ON AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY, DID NOT VIOLATE PRISON RULES PROHIBITING GANG ACTIVITY BY DISCUSSING THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY AND THE BLOODS (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER, THE GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY OF AN INCAPACITATED PERSON SINCE 2012, WAS ASKED TO RECERTIFY THE GUARDIANSHIP BY A NEW BANK WHICH TOOK OVER THE ACCOUNTS; PETITIONER SOUGHT TO CONTINUE THE TERMS OF THE 2012 ORDER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, MODIFIED THE TERMS OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER ABSENT A REQUEST FROM A PARTY TO DO SO (THIRD DEPT).
HERE THE COMPLAINT STATED A CHILD-VICTIMS-ACT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE STATE; THE STATE ASSUMES A DUTY OF PROTECTION AGAINST HARM FOR A CHILD IN ITS CUSTODY; THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT DEFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO ALLEGE THE STATE OWED PLAINTIFF A SPECIAL DUTY, OVER AND ABOVE THAT OWED THE GENERAL PUBLIC (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SO HIS FALL FROM A LADDER WAS NOT ACTIONABLE PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1), A MUNICIPALITY’S MAINTENANCE OF LIGHT POLES IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION TO WHICH THE DOCTRINE OF IMMUNITY DOES NOT APPLY, THE MUNICIPALITY’S ‘LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE’ DEFENSE COULD NOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (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 © 2026 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...