From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Caruso v. Inhilco, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 22, 2003
2 A.D.3d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-04033.

December 22, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated February 14, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict finding the defendant third-party plaintiff liable to the plaintiffs for a violation of Labor Law § 241(6), granted the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff for indemnification against it.

Marshall, Conway Wright, P.C. (Mauro Goldberg Lilling LLP, Great Neck, N.Y. [Caryn L. Lilling and Matthew W. Naparty] of counsel), for third-party defendant-appellant.

Ohrenstein Brown, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Abraham E. Havkins and Steve M. DeVerteuil of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent.

Before: GLORIA GOLDSTEIN and HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the third-party complaint is dismissed.

The defendant third-party plaintiff, Inhilco, Inc. (hereinafter Inhilco), was not entitled to contractual indemnification for its own negligence ( see Itri Brick Concrete Corp. v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 786; Carriere v. Whiting Turner Contr., 299 A.D.2d 509). The broad indemnity clause of Inhilco's contract with the third-party defendant, Triad Project Management, Inc. (hereinafter Triad), for any claims for bodily injury "that may arise from * * * operations under this Agreement" was illegal ( see Stottlar v. Ginsburg Dev. Corp., 89 N.Y.2d 786; Carrier v. Whiting Turner Contr., supra).

Moreover, Inhilco failed to meet its burden of establishing its entitlement to common-law indemnification ( see Wagner v. Skanska Const. Co., 289 A.D.2d 324; Belcastro v. Hewlett-Woodmere Union Free School Dist. No. 14, 286 A.D.2d 744, 747).

Further, since Inhilco settled with the plaintiffs without securing Triad's waiver of prohibition of contribution prior to an adjudication of damages, it was not entitled to contribution against Triad ( see General Obligations Law § 15-108[c]; Mitchell v. New York Hosp., 61 N.Y.2d 208; Lunn v. County of Nassau, 115 A.D.2d 457; Makeun v. State of New York, 98 A.D.2d 583).

RITTER, J.P., SMITH, GOLDSTEIN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Caruso v. Inhilco, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 22, 2003
2 A.D.3d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Caruso v. Inhilco, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CALOGERO CARUSO, ET AL., plaintiffs-respondents, v. INHILCO, INC.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 22, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
768 N.Y.S.2d 639

Citing Cases

Torchio v. N.Y. City

Additionally, we note that the contractual indemnification provision at issue appears to run afoul of General…

REY v. RIDAMASET, LLC

Insofar as defendants seek conditional grant of summary judgment on their claim for common-law…