insurance procurement clause in New York

2025Inter is also entitled to summary judgment on its claim that Unibud breached the insurance procurement clause in the contract between them ( Kinney v Lisk Co. , 76 NY2d 215, 219 [1990]).

2025Inter is also entitled to summary judgment on its claim that Unibud breached the insurance procurement clause in the contract between them ( Kinney v Lisk Co. , 76 NY2d 215, 219 [1990]).

2026"A contractual indemnity provision 'must be strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed'" ( Hanna v Milazzo, 179 AD3d 907, 909 , quoting Hooper Assoc. v AGS Computers , 74 NY2d at 491 ). "[W]here, as here, the liability is to a third party, General Obligations Law § 5-321 does not preclude enforcement of an indemnification provision in a commercial lease negotiated at arm's length between two sophisticated parties when coupled with an insurance procurement requirement" ( Bilska v Truszkowski , 171 AD3d 685 , 687 [internal quotation marks om

2019To the extent that the parties' agreement could be interpreted to require Bowian to indemnify the landlord for her own negligence, the subject indemnification provision is not rendered unenforceable by General Obligations Law § 5-321, which provides that an agreement that purports to exempt a lessor from its own negligence is void and unenforceable ( see Campisi v Gambar Food Corp. , 130 AD3d at 855 ). "[W]here, as here, the liability is to a third party, General Obligations Law § 5-321 does not preclude enforcement of an indemnification provision in a commercial lease negotiated at arm's leng

2023They established prima facie that the lease agreement with E&O contained an insurance procurement provision, and E&O failed to raise an issue of fact by submitting its insurance policy or any proof showing that it had complied with the insurance procurement requirement ( see Benedetto v Hyatt Corp. , 203 AD3d 505, 506 [1st Dept 2022]).

2023They established prima facie that the lease agreement with E&O contained an insurance procurement provision, and E&O failed to raise an issue of fact by submitting its insurance policy or any proof showing that it had complied with the insurance procurement requirement ( see Benedetto v Hyatt Corp. , 203 AD3d 505, 506 [1st Dept 2022]).

2023Supreme Court properly found Nelson failed to comply with this provision, as it is uncontroverted that neither the subject premises was included in the covered locations nor was Con Ed insured for its own negligence ( see Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. v Best Buy Stores, L.P. , 194 AD3d 487, 488 [1st Dept 2021]).

2023Supreme Court properly found Nelson failed to comply with this provision, as it is uncontroverted that neither the subject premises was included in the covered locations nor was Con Ed insured for its own negligence ( see Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. v Best Buy Stores, L.P. , 194 AD3d 487, 488 [1st Dept 2021]).

2014In an order entered April 1, 2013, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied that branch of 4042 Austin’s motion which was for summary judgment on its third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification, and granted that branch of South Island’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification. 4042 Austin appeals from those portions of the order. *728 “[W]here, as here, the liability is to a third party, General Obligations Law § 5-321 does not preclude enforcement of an indemnification provision in a commercial

2014Contrary to the contention of Elias Taverna, the indemnification provision in the lease agreement is not rendered unenforceable by General Obligations Law § 5-321, which provides that an agreement that purports to exempt a lessor from its own negligence is void and unenforceable. “[W]here, as here, the liability is to a third party, General Obligations Law § 5-321 does not preclude enforcement of an indemnification provision in a commercial lease negotiated at arm’s length between two sophisticated parties when coupled with an insurance procurement requirement” (DiBuono v Abbey, LLC, 95 AD3d 1

2014Co., 290 AD2d 426 , 427 [2d Dept 2002] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted].) Here, the insurance-procurement clause is “entirely independent of the indemnification provision” (see McGill v Polytechnic Univ., 235 AD2d 400, 402 [2d Dept 1997]); and there is nothing to indicate that the liability insurance intended was limited only to S.M.M.B.’s liability as owner for the negligent acts of Mei Juan Lin as tenant (see Murray v Curtis Co., 189 AD2d 980, 982 [3d Dept 1993]).

1999Moreover, because the insurance procurement clause is entirely independent of the indemnification provisions in the contracts, a final determination of the liability of the ladder owner and the electrical subcontractor “for [their] failure to procure insurance need not await a factual determination as to whose negligence, if anyone’s, caused the plaintiff’s injuries” (McGill v Polytechnic Univ., supra, at 402; see also, Mathew v Crow Constr.

2012Because the insurance procurement clause is entirely independent of the indemnification provisions in the contract (Kinney v Lisk Co., 76 NY2d 215, 219 [1990]), a final determination of liability for the failure to procure insurance “need not await a factual determination as to whose negligence, if anyone’s, caused the plaintiffs injuries” (Kennelty v Darlind Constr., 260 AD2d 443, 445 [1999]).

2012Because the insurance procurement clause is entirely independent of the indemnification provisions in the contract (Kinney v Lisk Co., 76 NY2d 215, 219 [1990]), a final determination of liability for the failure to procure insurance “need not await a factual determination as to whose negligence, if anyone’s, caused the plaintiffs injuries” (Kennelty v Darlind Constr., 260 AD2d 443, 445 [1999]).

2025The motion court correctly granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, where he fell through a gap between a pipe scaffold and building faÇade that was hidden by plastic nailed to the scaffold and building ( see Hernandez v 767 Fifth Partners, LLC , 199 AD3d 484 , 485 [1st Dept 2021]; Romanczuk v Metropolitan Ins. & Annuity Co., 72 AD3d 592, 592 [1st Dept 2010]).

2025The motion court correctly granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, where he fell through a gap between a pipe scaffold and building faÇade that was hidden by plastic nailed to the scaffold and building ( see Hernandez v 767 Fifth Partners, LLC , 199 AD3d 484 , 485 [1st Dept 2021]; Romanczuk v Metropolitan Ins. & Annuity Co., 72 AD3d 592, 592 [1st Dept 2010]).

2025LLC, 217 AD3d 496 , 498 [1st Dept 2023] [defendants established “prima facie that the lease agreement with E&O contained an insurance procurement provision, and E&O failed to raise an issue of fact by submitting its insurance policy or any proof showing that it had complied with the insurance procurement requirement”]; accord Crespo v Triad, Inc., 294 AD2d 145, 148 [1st Dept 2002] [“The Owners were properly granted partial summary judgment on their cross claim against Bozell for breach of contract for failure to procure insurance where the lease between them 153984/2020 TIJARO, OSCAR vs.

2014Co., 290 AD2d 426 , 427 [2d Dept 2002] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted].) Here, the insurance-procurement clause is “entirely independent of the indemnification provision” (see McGill v Polytechnic Univ., 235 AD2d 400, 402 [2d Dept 1997]); and there is nothing to indicate that the liability insurance intended was limited only to S.M.M.B.’s liability as owner for the negligent acts of Mei Juan Lin as tenant (see Murray v Curtis Co., 189 AD2d 980, 982 [3d Dept 1993]).

2012Contrary to Palisades’s contention, the indemnification provisions in Leases 1 and 2 were not rendered unenforceable by General Obligations Law § 5-321, which provides that an agreement which purports to exempt a lessor from its own negligence is void and unenforceable. “[W]here, as here, the liability is to a third party, General Obligations Law § 5-321 does not preclude enforcement of an indemnification provision in a commercial lease negotiated at arm’s length between two sophisticated parties when coupled with an insurance procurement requirement” (DiBuono v Abbey, LLC, 83 AD3d 650, 653 [2

2011Contrary to Palisades’s contention, the indemnification provision in the lease agreement is not rendered unenforceable by General Obligations Law § 5-321, which provides that an agree ment that purports to exempt a lessor from its own negligence is void and unenforceable. “[W]here, as here, the liability is to a third party, General Obligations Law § 5-321 does not preclude enforcement of an indemnification provision in a commercial lease negotiated at arm’s length between two sophisticated parties when coupled with an insurance procurement requirement” (Castano v Zee-Jay Realty Co., 55 AD3d 7

2010Here, the elevator company failed to demonstrate that the nursing home breached an insurance procurement clause (see Bryde v CVS Pharmacy, 61 AD3d 907, 909 [2009]).

2009Corp., 59 AD3d 395 [2009]; KwangHo Kim v D & W Shin Realty Corp., 47 AD3d 616, 620 [2008]).

2000Corp., supra; Radius, Ltd. v Newhouse, supra, at 615; Metropolitan Art Assocs. v Wexler, 118 AD2d 548 ).