You are here: / / IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THERE WAS NO EXPRESS INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT...
,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THERE WAS NO EXPRESS INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEFENDANT GROCERY STORE AND THE FLO0R-CLEANING DEFENDANTS AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE FLOOR-CLEANING DEFENDANTS WERE NEGLIGENT OR CAUSED THE INJURY; THEREFORE THE GROCERY STORE’S INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION ACTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the indemnification and contribution causes of action brought by the defendant grocery store (ShopRite) against the floor-cleaning defendants (Advance and Corporate) in this slip and fall case should have been dismissed. There was no express indemnification agreement. There was no showing Advance and Corporate were negligent. Safier v Wakefern Food Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 05413, Second Dept 10-25-23

 

You might also like
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, HIRING AND RETENTION CASE, THE MEDICAL RECORDS OF A NON-PARTY WITNESS WHO ALLEGED IMPROPER CONDUCT BY DEFENDANT DOCTOR ARE DISCOVERABLE ONLY TO THE EXTENT THEY INCLUDE NON-PRIVILEGED INFORMATION INDICATING DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S EMPLOYER WAS AWARE OF THE ALLEGATIONS, THE NON-PARTY WITNESS DID NOT WAIVE THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE BY DISCUSSING HER MEDICAL HISTORY IN A DEPOSITION (SECOND DEPT).
THE “TIME WHEN” THE ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE TOOK PLACE IN 1997 WAS ADEQUATELY ALLEGED IN THE CLAIM IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT (SECOND DEPT).
SIZE OF SIDEWALK DEFECT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE HAD NOTICE OF IT.
Although Plaintiff Could Not Establish a Valid Mechanic’s Lien, Supreme Court Should Have Allowed the Action to Proceed As If it Were Brought As a Breach of Contract
THE NOTICE TO ADMIT SOUGHT CONCESSIONS THAT WENT TO THE ESSENCE OF THE CONTROVERSY AND THEREFORE WAS PALPABLY IMPROPER (SECOND DEPT).
EXCLUDING A SPECTATOR FROM THE TRIAL BECAUSE HE WAS SLEEPING DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL; THE CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR IS NOT SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CPLR 3216 OR 22 NYCRR 202.7, AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR A “SUA SPONTE” DISMISSAL (SECOND 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

ALTHOUGH THE TEN-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND THE SALE... THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING...