From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schultz v. Harrison Radiator Division

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1994
209 A.D.2d 956 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 16, 1994

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

Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted third-party plaintiff, Harrison Radiator Division, General Motors Corporation (Harrison), summary judgment on the issues of common-law and contractual indemnification. Third-party defendant, Commercial Painting Company (Commercial), failed to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding Harrison's entitlement to indemnification. It is undisputed that Harrison did not exercise any supervision, control or authority over the work performed by Commercial. Harrison was therefore entitled to common-law indemnification (see, Kelly v. Diesel Constr. Div., 35 N.Y.2d 1, 6). Furthermore, because Commercial exercised exclusive authority over the work and there has been no showing of fault on the part of Harrison, the indemnification clause in the contract between Harrison and Commercial must be enforced (see, Brown v. Two Exch. Plaza Partners, 76 N.Y.2d 172).


Summaries of

Schultz v. Harrison Radiator Division

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1994
209 A.D.2d 956 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Schultz v. Harrison Radiator Division

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT SCHULTZ, Plaintiff, v. HARRISON RADIATOR DIVISION, GENERAL MOTORS…

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

Date published: Nov 16, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 956 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
619 N.Y.S.2d 1017

Citing Cases

Mount v. Gamble Machine, Inc.

As the owner of the premises, Gamble is only vicariously liable to an injured worker under Labor Law § 240…

Golda v. National Fuel Gas Distr. Corp.

As a matter of law, Hutchinson did not supervise, direct, or control plaintiff or his work. Absent proof that…