City of New York v. Consolidated Edison Co.

198 A.D.2d 31, 603 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10246
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 4, 1993·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about September 8, 1992, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The City is not entitled to indemnification from Con Ed; since the jury apportioned 40% of the fault against the City, common law indemnification is inapplicable (see, D’Ambrosio v City of New York, 55 NY2d 454). Also, contrary to the City’s claim, Administrative Code of the City of New York § 19-107 does not provide for indemnification for the City against Con Ed. That Administrative Code provision provides only that a [32]*32contractor such as Con Ed is responsible for its own negligence (see, Petrucci v City of New York, 167 AD2d 29, 34). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

City of New York v. Consolidated Edison Co., 198 A.D.2d 31, 603 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10246 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

198 A.D.2d 31 (City of New York v. Consolidated Edison Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Corwin v. NYC Bike Share, LLC
238 F. Supp. 3d 475 (S.D. New York, 2017)
Baczyk v. Park 25th Associates
261 A.D.2d 180 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Libardi v. City of New York
201 A.D.2d 539 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)