Cristales v. Chase Manhattan Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cristales v. Chase Manhattan Bank

278 A.D.2d 271, 718 N.Y.S.2d 185, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12904

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

DecidedDecember 11, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 271 (Cristales v. Chase Manhattan Bank) 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

Cristales v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 278 A.D.2d 271, 718 N.Y.S.2d 185, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated September 24, 1999, as granted that branch of the third-party defendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing its causes of action to recover damages for contractual indemnification and for breach of an agreement to procure insurance.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the defendant third-party plaintiff’s causes of action to recover damages for contractual indemnification and breach of an agreement to procure insurance is denied, and those causes of action are reinstated.

The injured plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on ice at premises owned by the defendant third-party plaintiff, Chase Manhattan Bank (hereinafter Chase). She subsequently commenced this action against Chase alleging that it negligently maintained the property. Chase commenced a third-party action against Paris Maintenance Co., Inc. (hereinafter Paris Maintenance), the plaintiff’s employer, which had a contract with Chase to provide snow removal services. The contract provided, inter alia, that Paris Maintenance would indemnify Chase and hold it harmless from liability claims arising out of the performance of the contract by Paris Maintenance.

The Supreme Court erroneously dismissed Chase’s cause of [272]*272action sounding in contractual indemnification inasmuch as Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 permits a third party to seek indemnification from the plaintiffs employer under such circumstances (cf., Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., 91 NY2d 577, 582). Further, Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 does not bar a third-party action against an employer premised upon the employer’s alleged breach of an agreement to procure liability insurance (see, Santos v Floral Park Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons, No. 1016, 261 AD2d 526). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated September 24, 1999, as granted that branch of the third-party defendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing its causes of action to recover damages for contractual indemnification and for breach of an agreement to procure insurance.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the defendant third-party plaintiff’s causes of action to recover damages for contractual indemnification and breach of an agreement to procure insurance is denied, and those causes of action are reinstated.

The injured plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on ice at premises owned by the defendant third-party plaintiff, Chase Manhattan Bank (hereinafter Chase). She subsequently commenced this action against Chase alleging that it negligently maintained the property. Chase commenced a third-party action against Paris Maintenance Co., Inc. (hereinafter Paris Maintenance), the plaintiff’s employer, which had a contract with Chase to provide snow removal services. The contract provided, inter alia, that Paris Maintenance would indemnify Chase and hold it harmless from liability claims arising out of the performance of the contract by Paris Maintenance.

The Supreme Court erroneously dismissed Chase’s cause of [272]*272action sounding in contractual indemnification inasmuch as Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 permits a third party to seek indemnification from the plaintiffs employer under such circumstances (cf., Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., 91 NY2d 577, 582). Further, Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 does not bar a third-party action against an employer premised upon the employer’s alleged breach of an agreement to procure liability insurance (see, Santos v Floral Park Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons, No. 1016, 261 AD2d 526). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 271, 718 N.Y.S.2d 185, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cristales-v-chase-manhattan-bank-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack