From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Solomon v. City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 7, 1987
70 N.Y.2d 675 (N.Y. 1987)

Opinion

Argued May 27, 1987

Decided July 7, 1987

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Frank A. Vaccaro, J.

Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corporation Counsel (Helen P. Brown, June A. Witterschein and Stephen J. McGrath of counsel), for appellant.

Irwin M. Echtman and Bruce W. Hesselbach for La Crosse Construction Corp., third-party defendant-respondent.

Scott N. Singer and Melvin Sacks for Edward Solomon and another, respondents.

Ralph Mancuso and another, respondents, precluded.


Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in so much of the memorandum at the Appellate Division as concluded that the trial court erred in granting judgment to the city on its third-party complaint against La Crosse for contractual indemnification ( 111 A.D.2d 383, 387-388).

Concur: Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA.


Summaries of

Solomon v. City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 7, 1987
70 N.Y.2d 675 (N.Y. 1987)
Case details for

Solomon v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD SOLOMON et al., Respondents, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jul 7, 1987

Citations

70 N.Y.2d 675 (N.Y. 1987)
518 N.Y.S.2d 963
512 N.E.2d 546

Citing Cases

Wisniewski v. Kings Plaza Shop. Center of Flatbush Ave., Inc.

The clause does not provide contractual indemnification in favor of Kings Plaza for claims by an Abax…

Uddin v. A.TA. Constr. Corp.

"An indemnity clause must reflect the unmistakable intent of the parties as to the scope of its coverage" (…