From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

John W. Cowper Co. v. Potomac Iron Works

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 30, 1992
188 A.D.2d 1065 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

December 30, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Forma, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Boomer, Davis and Doerr, JJ.


Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motions of Potomac Iron Works, Inc. (Potomac), Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (Fireman's Fund) and Aetna Insurance Company (Aetna) seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint that alleges a cause of action for common-law or implied indemnification. The predicate for common-law or implied indemnity is vicarious liability without actual fault on the part of the proposed indemnitee, and therefore, "`it follows that a party who has itself actually participated to some degree in the wrongdoing cannot receive the benefit of the doctrine'" (Dormitory Auth. v Caudill Rowlett Scott, 160 A.D.2d 179, 181, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 706, quoting Trustees of Columbia Univ. v Mitchell/Giurgola Assocs., 109 A.D.2d 449, 453; see also, Rock v Reed-Prentice Div., 39 N.Y.2d 34). The movants demonstrated their initial entitlement to judgment in their favor as a matter of law by the submission of evidentiary proof in admissible form establishing that plaintiff, the general contractor on the construction project, actually participated to some degree in the wrongdoing attributable to Potomac when it directed and supervised repair and paint work on certain steel marble support fins that Potomac fabricated and delivered to plaintiff. Moreover, the movants established that plaintiff failed to exercise due care in the performance of its obligations to direct and supervise the installation of those fins (see, Gordon J. Phillips, Inc. v Concrete Materials, 187 A.D.2d 1024; First Bible Baptist Church v Gates-Chili Cent. School Dist., 172 A.D.2d 1057, 1058; Crow Constr. Co. v Quickway Metal Fabricators, 155 A.D.2d 295, 296). Plaintiff failed to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to its participation in the acts giving rise to the loss (see, Trustees of Columbia Univ. v Mitchell/Giurgola Assocs., supra). Therefore, we modify the order appealed from by granting the motions of Aetna, Fireman's Fund and Potomac for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


Summaries of

John W. Cowper Co. v. Potomac Iron Works

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 30, 1992
188 A.D.2d 1065 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

John W. Cowper Co. v. Potomac Iron Works

Case Details

Full title:JOHN W. COWPER COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Respondent-Appellant, v. POTOMAC…

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

Date published: Dec 30, 1992

Citations

188 A.D.2d 1065 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

John Hollenbaugh v. Frontier Asphalt

Similarly, there are triable questions of fact precluding summary judgment for Conesus on its cross claim…

Hagerman v. State Street Realty

Moreover, the fact that during the five-year period in which Edger had provided plowing services, he never…