Turillo v. Helmsley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Turillo v. Helmsley

251 A.D.2d 243, 674 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7699

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

DecidedJune 25, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 243 (Turillo v. Helmsley) 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

Turillo v. Helmsley, 251 A.D.2d 243, 674 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[244]*244—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about May 19, 1997, which granted third-party plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their third-party claim for breach of contract and indemnification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, while employed by third-party defendant Levkoff, was injured while moving a rack of Levkoffs clothing into an area leased by Levkoff, in a building owned by third-party plaintiffs (landlord). The lease provided that Levkoff was to maintain comprehensive liability insurance against all claims arising out of or connected with the conduct and operation of Levkoffs business, with landlord named as an additional insured. Levkoff did not obtain such insurance, and it is accordingly liable for the resulting damages, including landlord’s liability to plaintiff, if such is found (see, Kinney v Lisk Co., 76 NY2d 215, 219). This is so even if landlord were to be found solely negligent for plaintiffs injuries, because “an agreement to procure insurance specifically anticipates the promisee’s ‘continued responsibility’ for its own negligence for which the promisor is obligated to furnish insurance [citations omitted]” (supra, at 218). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

[244]*244—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about May 19, 1997, which granted third-party plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their third-party claim for breach of contract and indemnification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, while employed by third-party defendant Levkoff, was injured while moving a rack of Levkoffs clothing into an area leased by Levkoff, in a building owned by third-party plaintiffs (landlord). The lease provided that Levkoff was to maintain comprehensive liability insurance against all claims arising out of or connected with the conduct and operation of Levkoffs business, with landlord named as an additional insured. Levkoff did not obtain such insurance, and it is accordingly liable for the resulting damages, including landlord’s liability to plaintiff, if such is found (see, Kinney v Lisk Co., 76 NY2d 215, 219). This is so even if landlord were to be found solely negligent for plaintiffs injuries, because “an agreement to procure insurance specifically anticipates the promisee’s ‘continued responsibility’ for its own negligence for which the promisor is obligated to furnish insurance [citations omitted]” (supra, at 218). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 243, 674 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turillo-v-helmsley-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack