At page 979 Pleading elements of common-law indemnification9 citing casesIn addition, Country Squire failed to sufficiently plead the elements of common-law indemnification as its cross claim did not allege that the plaintiffs…
- United States Fire Ins. v. Raia, 121 A.D.3d 970 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).publishedRaia, Rondos, and Raia & Rondos, EC., also demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing C&C’s cross claim for common-law indemnification as against them by showing that C&C’s liability, if any, would…
- United States Fire Ins. v. Raia, 114 A.D.3d 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published Raia, Rondos, and the R&R firm also demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing C&C’s cross claim for common-law indemnification insofar as asserted against them by showing that C&C’s liability, if…
- Martin v. Huang, 85 A.D.3d 1132 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011).publishedNone of the other defendants opposed these branches of the Costa defendants’ motion and, therefore, no triable issue of fact was raised (see Corley v Country Squire Apts., Inc., 32 AD3d 978, 979 [2006]).
- Chunn v. New York City Hous. Auth., 83 A.D.3d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2011).publishedSince NYCHA’s liability, if any, will be based on its own negligence, it has no claim for common-law indemnification (see Corley v Country Squire Apts., Inc., 32 AD3d 978, 979 [2006]).
- Idlewild 94-100 Clark, LLC v. City of New York, 27 Misc. 3d 1006 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010).publishedIn order to state a claim for common-law indemnification, plaintiffs must allege that their “injury was due solely to the appellant’s negligent performance or nonperformance of an act solely within its province” (Corley v Country Squire Ap…
- Kearsey v. Vestal Park, LLC, 71 A.D.3d 1363 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2010).publishedDismissal of the common-law indemnification claims was also proper since defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiffs accident was attributable solely to the negligent performance or nonperformance of an act…
- Jones v. Rochdale Vill., Inc., 96 A.D.3d 1014 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).published Furthermore, the liability of Zimmerman’s codefendants, “if any, would be based on their actual wrongdoing, not their vicarious liability for [Zimmerman]’s allegedly negligent conduct, thus defeating all claims for common-law indemnificati…
At page 978 Granting summary judgment on cross claims for indemnification7 citing casesIn an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Rick Osburn Construction, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court,…
- Landow & Landow Architects, LLP v. Tenzer, 136 A.D.3d 985 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).publishedIn opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Reimold v Walden Terrace, Inc., 85 AD3d 1144, 1146 [2011]; Corley v Country Squire Apts., Inc., 32 AD3d 978, 978 [2006]).
- East End Resources, LLC v. Town of Southold Plan. Bd., 135 A.D.3d 899 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).publishedEast End failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as it did not address this branch of the appellants’ motion in its papers filed in opposition to the motion (see Reimold v Walden Terrace, Inc., 85 AD3d 1144, 1146 [2011]; Corley v Country…
- Konsky v. Escada Hair Salon, Inc., 113 A.D.3d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014).published Fund Co., 69 NY2d 559, 568-569 [1987]; Reimold v Walden Terrace, Inc., 85 AD3d 1144, 1146-1147 [2011]; Ruiz v Griffin, 50 AD3d 1007, 1009-1010 [2008]; Corley v Country Squire Apts., Inc., 32 AD3d 978, 978 [2006]; Consolidated Rail Corp. v…
- Campoverde v. Fabian Builders, LLC, 95 A.D.3d 1156 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).publishedTDC and Gurino established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they did not have a contractual obligation to indemnify Fabian (see Reimold v Walden Terrace, Inc., 85 AD3d 1144, 1146 [2011]; Co…
- Reimold v. Walden Terrace, Inc., 85 A.D.3d 1144 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011).publishedWith respect to contractual indemnification, Coinmach established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not have a contractual obligation to indemnify Walden Terrace (see Corley v Country S…
- Bedessee Imports, Inc. v. Cook, Hall & Hyde, Inc., 45 A.D.3d 792 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007).publishedThe plaintiff submitted no opposition to Kemper’s motion and, therefore, failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to its allegation that Kemper’s conduct constituted an active breach of contract (see Corley v Country Squire Apt…
v.
Country Squire Apartments, Inc., and Rick Osburn Construction, Inc.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Rick Osburn Construction, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Horowitz, J.), dated October 11, 2005, as denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims of the defendant Country Squire Apartments, Inc., for contractual and common-law indemnification.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and those branches of the motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims of the defendant Country Squire Apartments, Inc., for contractual and common-law indemnification are granted.
The Supreme Court erred in denying those branches of the appellant’s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims of the defendant Country Squire Apartments, Inc. (hereinafter Country Squire), for contractual and common-law indemnification. With respect to contractual indemnification, the appellant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. There is no evidence that the appellant had any contractual obligation to indemnify Country Squire (see Keshavarz v Murphy, 242 AD2d 680 [1997]). Country Squire did not oppose that branch of the appellant’s motion which was for summary judgment on the cross claim for contractual indemnification, and thus failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Fairhaven Apts. No. 4, Inc. v Town of N. Hempstead, 8 AD3d 425 [2004]).
[*979] In addition, Country Squire failed to sufficiently plead the elements of common-law indemnification as its cross claim did not allege that the plaintiffs injury was due solely to the appellant’s negligent performance or nonperformance of an act solely within its province (see Murphy v M.B. Real Estate Dev. Corp., 280 AD2d 457 [2001]). In any event, the appellant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on Country Squire’s cross claim for common-law indemnification by showing that Country Squire’s liability, if any, would be based on its actual wrongdoing in failing to properly maintain its property, and not on its vicarious liability for the appellant’s conduct (see Keshavarz v Murphy, supra). In opposition, Country Squire failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Miller, J.P., Adams, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.