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
DEFENSE ‘FALSE CONFESSION’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY, CONVICTION REVERSED; RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES NOT VIOLATED BY STATEMENTS IN THE VIDEO INTERROGATION THAT NONTESTIFYING WITNESSES HAD IMPLICATED THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
THE CRACK OVER WHICH INFANT PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED WAS DEEMED TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
Affidavits, Deposition Testimony, and Letters Are Not Considered “Documentary Evidence” Within the Meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1)
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FACE PLATE WHICH FELL OFF AN AIR CONDITIONER, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, DEFENDANTS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE AND EXCLUSIVE CONTROL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SEOND DEPT).
SECOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY ENTERTAINED; ABSENCE OF SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST POLICE.
POLICY EXCLUSION WAS AMBIGUOUS, INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND.
WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNER DIED INTESTATE, THE DECEDENT’S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY PASSED OUTSIDE THE ESTATE TO THE DISTRIBUTEES AS TENANTS IN COMMON; THEREFORE, THE PARTITION ACTION BY ONE OF THE TENANTS IN COMMON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISED ON THE GROUND AN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE HAD BEEN APPOINTED (SECOND DEPT).
INCREASED SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INJURY JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT AFFECT THE VERDICT, NO DUTY TO MITIGATE DAMAGES BY LOSING WEIGHT, REQUEST FOR MITIGATION OF DAMAGES JURY INSTRUCTION PROPERLY DENIED (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...