Naclerio v. C.R. Klewin, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Naclerio v. C.R. Klewin, Inc.

293 A.D.2d 588, 740 N.Y.S.2d 237, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3705

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 15, 2002·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated April 19, 2001, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the motion of the third-party defendant Kendland Company, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the respondent, a subcontractor, which was for summary judgment dismissing the appellant general contractor’s third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification. The indemnification clause is triggered only in the event of a finding of negligence on the part of the subcontractor or its agents or employees. There is no basis in the record to find such negligence, as a matter of law.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, 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, etc., the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated April 19, 2001, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the motion of the third-party defendant Kendland Company, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the respondent, a subcontractor, which was for summary judgment dismissing the appellant general contractor’s third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification. The indemnification clause is triggered only in the event of a finding of negligence on the part of the subcontractor or its agents or employees. There is no basis in the record to find such negligence, as a matter of law.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Naclerio v. C.R. Klewin, Inc., 293 A.D.2d 588, 740 N.Y.S.2d 237, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

293 A.D.2d 588 (Naclerio v. C.R. Klewin, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related