Narvaez v. 4518 Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Narvaez v. 4518 Associates

250 A.D.2d 436, 672 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5608

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

DecidedMay 14, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 436 (Narvaez v. 4518 Associates) 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

Narvaez v. 4518 Associates, 250 A.D.2d 436, 672 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5608 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered April 4, 1997, which granted defendants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment to the extent of directing that defendant-appellant, Tri-State Demolition, defend and indemnify defendants-respondents and pay their attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The indemnification clause in the parties’ contract is enforce[437]*437able since it does not impose an obligation to indemnify for negligence other than that of the indemnitor and its agents (see, Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 786, 793-794). Nor is there any question as to whether the indemnitees, defendants-respondents, were actually at fault, for although defendants-respondents’ general contractor had a supervisor on hand, who was responsible for general safety at the work site, the record establishes that that supervisor did not control or supervise performance of the work in the course of which plaintiff was injured. The record in fact demonstrates that said supervisor’s suggestion for performance of the work was not followed and that defendant-appellant’s foreman and its subcontractor’s foreman were solely responsible for direction of work in question (see, Rice v PCM Dev. Agency Co., 230 AD2d 898, 899-900; Isnardi v Genovese Drug Stores, 242 AD2d 672; Seecharran v 100 W. 33rd St. Realty Corp., 198 AD2d 121, 122). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Ellerin, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered April 4, 1997, which granted defendants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment to the extent of directing that defendant-appellant, Tri-State Demolition, defend and indemnify defendants-respondents and pay their attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The indemnification clause in the parties’ contract is enforce[437]*437able since it does not impose an obligation to indemnify for negligence other than that of the indemnitor and its agents (see, Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 786, 793-794). Nor is there any question as to whether the indemnitees, defendants-respondents, were actually at fault, for although defendants-respondents’ general contractor had a supervisor on hand, who was responsible for general safety at the work site, the record establishes that that supervisor did not control or supervise performance of the work in the course of which plaintiff was injured. The record in fact demonstrates that said supervisor’s suggestion for performance of the work was not followed and that defendant-appellant’s foreman and its subcontractor’s foreman were solely responsible for direction of work in question (see, Rice v PCM Dev. Agency Co., 230 AD2d 898, 899-900; Isnardi v Genovese Drug Stores, 242 AD2d 672; Seecharran v 100 W. 33rd St. Realty Corp., 198 AD2d 121, 122). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Ellerin, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 436, 672 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/narvaez-v-4518-associates-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack