Baskewicz v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.

217 A.D.2d 922, 629 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8341
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 14, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 217 A.D.2d 922 (Baskewicz v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baskewicz v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp., 217 A.D.2d 922, 629 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied that part of the cross motion of third-party plaintiffs, Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E) and Fast Trak Structures, Inc. (Fast Trak), seeking conditional summary judgment on their third-party claims for contractual indemnification against third-party defendant Solar Wind Energy Systems, Ltd. (Solar Wind). Because a question of fact exists whether the injuries of Lawrence J. Baskewicz (plaintiff) were caused by a negligent act of Solar Wind, Fast Trak is not entitled to a conditional judgment for contractual indemnification against Solar Wind (see, Hayes v Crane Hogan Structural Sys., 191 AD2d 978, 979; Stimson v Lapp Insulator Co., 186 AD2d 1052, 1053). RG&E is not entitled to contractual indemnification against Solar Wind because the contract between Fast Trak and Solar Wind did not expressly state that they intended their contract to benefit RG&E (see, Port Chester Elec. Constr. Corp. v Atlas, 40 NY2d 652, 656; cf., Ralston Purina Co. v McKee & Co., 158 AD2d 969, 970).

The court erred, however, in denying that part of the cross motion of RG&E and Fast Trak seeking conditional summary judgment on their third-party claims for common-law indemnification against Solar Wind. There is no evidence that RG&E or Fast Trak controlled, directed or supervised plaintiffs work. Solar Wind alone was responsible for directing plaintiffs work and providing the ladder from which plaintiff fell. Absent proof that the liability of RG&E and Fast Trak was other than vicarious, their cross motion for conditional summary judgment should have been granted (see, Loper v City of Rochester, 209 AD2d 1052; Paterson v Hennessy, 206 AD2d 919). Thus, we modify the order on appeal by granting that part of the cross motion of RG&E and Fast Trak for conditional summary judgment on their third-party claims for common-law indemnification against Solar Wind. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siragusa, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present— Denman, P. J., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Logan-Baldwin v. L.S.M. General Contractors, Inc.
31 Misc. 3d 174 (New York Supreme Court, 2011)
Sheridan v. Albion Central School District
41 A.D.3d 1277 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Colyer v. K Mart Corp.
273 A.D.2d 809 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Laneuville v. General Motors Corp.
93 F. Supp. 2d 272 (N.D. New York, 2000)
Greenleaf v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
231 A.D.2d 902 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Eastman v. Volpi Manufacturing USA, Co.
229 A.D.2d 913 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Malecki v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
222 A.D.2d 1010 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Gillmore v. Daniel
221 A.D.2d 938 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
217 A.D.2d 922, 629 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baskewicz-v-rochester-gas-electric-corp-nyappdiv-1995.