City of New York v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 4, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 31 (City of New York v. Consolidated Edison Co.) 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

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).

Pincite

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

—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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 31, 603 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-york-v-consolidated-edison-co-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack