Flores v. Lower East Side Service Center, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flores v. Lower East Side Service Center, Inc.

3 A.D.3d 459, 770 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 902

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 459 (Flores v. Lower East Side Service Center, Inc.) 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

Flores v. Lower East Side Service Center, Inc., 3 A.D.3d 459, 770 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered April 18, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on its third-party action for indemnification and granted the cross motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since the damage plaintiff suffered to his right eye is not a “grave injury” under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 (see Ibarra v Equip. Control, 268 AD2d 13, 18 [2000]), defendant is unable to obtain indemnification from plaintiffs employer unless, prior to the accident, the parties entered into a written contract whereby the employer expressly agreed to contribute to or indemnify the claimant (cf. Acosta v Green Mgt. Corp., 267 AD2d 67 [1999]). It is undisputed that the contract defendant offered in support of its demand for indemnification was never signed. A contract that was not actually entered into before the occurrence of an accident is not available for indemnification against the employer, notwithstanding the latter’s supervision, direction and control of the work site and its general compliance with the terms of the unexecuted contract (see Burke v Fisher Sixth Ave. Co., 287 AD2d 410 [2001]; Beckford v City of New York, 261 AD2d 158 [1999]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered April 18, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on its third-party action for indemnification and granted the cross motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since the damage plaintiff suffered to his right eye is not a “grave injury” under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 (see Ibarra v Equip. Control, 268 AD2d 13, 18 [2000]), defendant is unable to obtain indemnification from plaintiffs employer unless, prior to the accident, the parties entered into a written contract whereby the employer expressly agreed to contribute to or indemnify the claimant (cf. Acosta v Green Mgt. Corp., 267 AD2d 67 [1999]). It is undisputed that the contract defendant offered in support of its demand for indemnification was never signed. A contract that was not actually entered into before the occurrence of an accident is not available for indemnification against the employer, notwithstanding the latter’s supervision, direction and control of the work site and its general compliance with the terms of the unexecuted contract (see Burke v Fisher Sixth Ave. Co., 287 AD2d 410 [2001]; Beckford v City of New York, 261 AD2d 158 [1999]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 459, 770 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flores-v-lower-east-side-service-center-inc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack