107 New York opinions name it 9 courts 1926–2025 18 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Margolin v. New York Life Insurancegreen2 sentences2020Co. , 32 NY2d 149, 153 [1973]), making summary resolution of the parties' claims for contractual indemnity against each other premature. 1976Co., 32 NY2d 149 ; Levine v Shell Oil Co., 28 NY2d 205 .) Nevertheless, the indemnity clause, by its own terms, has no application unless there has been an "act or omission” by Peckham resulting in injury to persons or property. | 4 | 8 |
McDermott v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2017While at one time it was thought that a cause of action for indemnity could not be brought by impleader in the main action since the indemnity claim was premature, it is now settled that an indemnity claim may be asserted by a third-party action in the main case (CPLR 1007; DiPerna v American Broadcasting Cos., 200 AD2d 267, 270 [1994], citing McDermott v City of New York, 50 NY2d 211 , 218 n 3 [1980]). 2017While at one time it was thought that a cause of action for indemnity could not be brought by impleader in the main action since the indemnity claim was premature, it is now settled that an indemnity claim may be asserted by a third-party action in the main case ( CPLR 1007; DiPerna v American Broadcasting Cos. , 200 AD2d 267, citing McDermott v City of New York , 50 NY2d 211, 218, n 3). | 2 | 9 |
Levine v. Shell Oil Co.green2 sentences2022To that end, Parry committed in the agreement to indemnify KPH "against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, actions, demands, claims, costs and expenses, including reasonable legal fees and expenses, arising out of or in connection with any claims for injuries or death to persons . . . arising from or claimed to arise from [Parry] performing services under [the agreement's] terms." As "the plain meaning of those words fairly includes the liability for [KPH's] active negligence" so long as the claim arose out of the services performed by Parry, KPH was not required to demonstrate the abse 1976Co., 32 NY2d 149 ; Levine v Shell Oil Co., 28 NY2d 205 .) Nevertheless, the indemnity clause, by its own terms, has no application unless there has been an "act or omission” by Peckham resulting in injury to persons or property. | 2 | 8 |
Hooper Associates Ltd. v. AGS Computers, Inc.green2 sentences2022Indeed, the provision is broader than the indemnity clause in Hooper (see 74 NY2d at 491 ). 2004Construing the language of the indemnity clause used by the parties in this case to embrace third- party claims based upon alleged negligence of Champagne "affords a fair meaning to all of the language employed by the parties in the contract and leaves no provision without force and effect" ( Hooper Associates, Ltd. v AGS Computers , Inc. , 74 NY2d 487, 493 [1989]). | 2 | 5 |
DiPerna v. American Broadcasting Companiesgreen2 sentences2017While at one time it was thought that a cause of action for indemnity could not be brought by impleader in the main action since the indemnity claim was premature, it is now settled that an indemnity claim may be asserted by a third-party action in the main case (CPLR 1007; DiPerna v American Broadcasting Cos., 200 AD2d 267, 270 [1994], citing McDermott v City of New York, 50 NY2d 211 , 218 n 3 [1980]). 2017While at one time it was thought that a cause of action for indemnity could not be brought by impleader in the main action since the indemnity claim was premature, it is now settled that an indemnity claim may be asserted by a third-party action in the main case ( CPLR 1007; DiPerna v American Broadcasting Cos. , 200 AD2d 267, citing McDermott v City of New York , 50 NY2d 211, 218, n 3). | 2 | 3 |
McCarthy v. Turner Construction, Inc.green2 sentences2025A party's right to common-law or implied indemnification is rooted in equity and "may be implied 'based upon the law's notion of what is fair and proper as between the parties'" ( McCarthy v Turner Constr., Inc. , 17 NY3d 369, 374-375 [2011] [citation omitted]; see 23 NY Jur 2d, Contribution, Indemnity, and Subrogation § 113 [West Group 2025]). 2025A party's right to common-law or implied indemnification is rooted in equity and "may be implied 'based upon the law's notion of what is fair and proper as between the parties'" ( McCarthy v Turner Constr., Inc. , 17 NY3d 369, 374-375 [2011] [citation omitted]; see 23 NY Jur 2d, Contribution, Indemnity, and Subrogation § 113 [West Group 2025]). | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Esmeldyn P.green2 sentences2024Regarding the indemnity claim of CUNY as against AIM, conditional indemnification is warranted ( see Johnson v Chelsea Grand E., LLC , 124 AD3d 542, 543 [1st Dept 2015]; Hernandez v Argo Corp ., 95 AD3d 782, 783-784 [1st Dept 2012]). 2018The indemnity clause expressly limits its own scope "[t]o the fullest extent permitted by law." Such qualifying language "limit[s] [a party's] contractual indemnity obligation solely to [the party's] own negligence" ( Brooks v Judlau Contr., Inc. , 11 NY3d 204, 210 [2008]), and redeems an otherwise facially violative indemnity provision ( see Johnson v Chelsea Grand E., LLC , 124 AD3d 542, 543 [1st Dept 2015]). | 2 | 2 |
Frank v. Meadowlakes Development Corp.green2 sentences2020Corp. , 6 NY3d 687, 692 [2006]). 2020Corp. , 6 NY3d 687, 692 [2006]). | 2 | 2 |
DiBuono v. Abbey, LLCgreen2 sentences2017“Under such circumstances, the purpose of the indemnity clause is not to exempt the lessor from liability to the victim, but to allocate the risk of liability to third parties between the lessor and the lessee” (DiBuono v Abbey, LLC, 83 AD3d 650, 653 [2011]). 2014“Under such circumstances, the purpose of the indemnity clause is not to exempt the lessor from liability to the victim, but to allocate the risk of liability to third parties between the lessor and the lessee” (DiBuono v Abbey, LLC, 83 AD3d 650, 653 [2011]). | 2 | 2 |
Ficus Investments, Inc. v. Private Capital Management, LLCgreen2 sentences2012Further, although the interpretation of the Delaware courts may be instructive, it is by no means binding on this Court (see Ficus Invs., Inc. v Private Capital Mgt., LLC, 61 AD3d 1, 9 [2009]). 2012Further, although the interpretation of the Delaware courts may be instructive, it is by no means binding on this Court (see Ficus Invs., Inc. v Private Capital Mgt., LLC, 61 AD3d 1, 9 [2009]). | 2 | 2 |
Rosado v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc.green2 sentences2020Furthermore, "an indemnity cause of action can be sustained only if the third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendant have breached a duty to the plaintiff and also if some duty to indemnify exists between them" ( Rosado v Proctor & Schwartz , 66 NY2d 21, 24 [1985] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Chemical Bank v Stahl , 272 AD2d 1, 19 [1st Dept 2000] ["The gravamen of an action for indemnity is that both parties . . . are subject to a duty to a third person under such circumstances that one of them, as between themselves, should perform it rather than the other" (internal qu 1990While General Obligations Law § 15-108 immunizes a settling tortfeasor from a contribution claim, it does not immunize such party from an indemnity claim (see, McDermott v City of New York, 50 NY2d 211 ), which shifts the entire loss to another to prevent an unjust or unsatisfactory result (Rosado v Proctor & Schwartz, 66 NY2d 21, 24 ). | 1 | 2 |
City of New York v. Lead Industries Ass'ngreen2 sentences2010Assn., 222 AD2d 119, 127 [1996]). 2009Assn., 222 AD2d at 124-126 ). | 1 | 2 |
Guyot v. Al Charyn, Inc.green2 sentences2006(Guyot v Al Charyn, Inc., 69 AD2d 79, 87 [1st Dept 1979].) Turning to the strict products liability cause of action, strict products liability has been a recognized cause of action, when dealing with a consumer’s claim of an injury caused by a food product for over 40 years in New York. 1984Where, as here, a product claim against a retailer may give rise to an indemnity claim against the manufacturer (see Guyot v Al Charyn, Inc., 69 AD2d 79 ; 2 Weinberger, New York Products Liability, § 24.03, p 3; Restatement, Torts 2d, § 886B), the third-party complaint should not be dismissed (see Franzek v Calspan Corp., 78 AD2d 134,141-142 ; Felice v St. | 1 | 2 |
Musco v. Contegreen2 sentences1981(See McDermott v City of New York, 50 NY2d 211 ; Bay Ridge Air Rights v State of New York, 44 NY2d 49 ; Rogers v Dorchester Assoc., 32 NY2d 553 ; Musco v Conte, 22 AD2d 121 .) However, a third-party action does not become an action for indemnity merely because the pleader has so denominated it. 1980And, since the cause of action is not complete until loss is suffered, familiar Statute of Limitations principles dictate that accrual occurs upon payment by the party seeking indemnity (see, e.g., Bay Ridge Air Rights v State of New York, 44 NY2d 49, 54 ; Musco v Conte, 22 AD2d 121, 125-126 [Hopkins, J.]; Occhialino, Contribution, Nineteenth Ann Report of NY Judicial Conference, 1974, at p 229; see, also, Ann., 57 ALR3d 867). 3 Because the indemnity claim is a separate substantive cause of action, independent of the underlying wrong, this accrual rule remains the same, whatever the underlying | 1 | 2 |
| Quinonez v. Manhattan Ford, Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Williams v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
Higgins v. TST 375 Hudson, L.L.C.green1 sentence2025When, as here, an indemnity clause provides for indemnification to the fullest extent permitted by law, conditionally granting Centrifugal summary judgment in contractual indemnity to the extent that it is not negligent would be consistent with General Obligation Law § 5-322.1. ( See Higgins v TST 375 Hudson, LLC , 179 AD3d 508, 511 [1st Dept 2020]; Williams v City of NY , 74 AD3d 479, 480 [1st Dept 2010].) Footnote 15: Although the signature line in both copies of the hold-harmless agreement are blank, "an unsigned contract may be enforceable, provided there is objective evidence establishing | 1 | 1 |
Balsam v. Delma Engineering Corp.green1 sentence2025Therefore, the accident arguably did not arise out of its work, and the contract’s indemnity clause would not apply (see Trawally v. City of New York, 137 AD3d 492 [1st Dept 2016]; Balsam v. Delman Eng’g Corp., 139 AD2d 292, 296 [1st Dept 1988]). 154726/2020 SHTEYMAN, VICTORIA vs. | 1 | 1 |
O'Connor v. Serge Elevator Co.green1 sentence2025In O’Connor v Serge Elevator Co., the Court of Appeals held that an indemnity clause applying to personal injuries “arising out of the work which is the subject of this contract” applied to the plaintiff’s being struck by an elevator while he was leaving the worksite for lunch (O’Connor, 58 NY2d at 657). | 1 | 1 |
| Hernandez v. Argo Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Two Exchange Plaza Partnersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bradley v. Earl B. Feiden, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Breed, Abbott & Morgan v. Hulkogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Balyszak v. Siena Collegegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chemical Bank v. Stahlgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brooks v. Judlau Contracting, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Miller v. Larkingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rodrigues v. N & S Building Contractors, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Facilities Development Corp. v. Milettagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Urban v. No. 5 Times Square Development, LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sherry v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.green | 1 | 1 |
| SIN, Inc. v. Department of Financegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Younggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Tambrands Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Northern States Co., Inc. v. A. Finkl & Sons Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Dowd & Dowd, Ltd. v. Gleasongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Perchinsky v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hawkins Home Groups, Inc. v. Southern Energy Homes, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Tonking v. Port Authority of New York & New Jerseygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dunham v. Weissmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Baginski v. Queen Grand Realty, LLC
green
2 sentences2012Because the chemicals were not in use at the time of the accident, a properly strict reading of the indemnity clause bars a finding that Chemtreat owes Falk contractual indemnity (Baginski v Queen Grand Realty, LLC, 68 AD3d 905 [2009]). 2012Because the chemicals were not in use at the time of the accident, a properly strict reading of the indemnity clause bars a finding that Chemtreat owes Falk contractual indemnity (Baginski v Queen Grand Realty, LLC, 68 AD3d 905 [2009]). | 5 | 2012–2012 |
Thompson-Starrett Co. v. Otis Elevator Co.
green
2 sentences1976Herman relies on the principle of law enunciated in Thompson-Starrett Co. v Otis Elevator Co. ( 271 NY 36, 41 ), as follows: "It is a general rule long established that contracts will not be construed to indemnify a person against his own negligence unless such intention is expressed in unequivocal terms.” Avlis contends that the language of the indemnity clause is clear and unambiguous, and unequivocally expresses the intention of the parties that Avlis was to be held harmless from all claims arising from the work involved in the contract even if such claims resulted from Avlis’ direct neglig 1972The case at bar differs from the usual situation where the courts have examined an indemnity clause with a view towards determining whether it covered injuries due to the active negligence of the lessor (cf. Thompson-Starrett Co. v. Otis Elevator Co., 271 N. Y. 36 ; Kurek v. Port Chester Housing Auth., 18 N Y 2d 450; Levine v. Shell Oil Co., 28 N Y 2d 205). | 5 | 1943–1976 |
Trawally v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2025Therefore, the accident arguably did not arise out of its work, and the contract’s indemnity clause would not apply (see Trawally v. City of New York, 137 AD3d 492 [1st Dept 2016]; Balsam v. Delman Eng’g Corp., 139 AD2d 292, 296 [1st Dept 1988]). 154726/2020 SHTEYMAN, VICTORIA vs. 2020Thus, issues of fact exist as to whether the indemnity clause in the Consulting Agreement between the parties was triggered ( see Trawally v City of New York , 137 AD3d 492 [1st Dept 2016]), and whether the clause violated General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 ( see Margolin v New York Life Ins. | 3 | 2020–2025 |
Castano v. Zee-Jay Realty Co.
green
2 sentences2024However, if the purpose of the indemnity clause is to exempt the landlord from liability to the victim—in this case the tenants and/or their employees—for its own negligence, it violates General Obligations Law § 5-321 ( see Castano v Zee-Jay Realty Co ., 55 AD3d 770 [2008]). 2011Under such circumstances, the purpose of the indemnity clause is not to exempt the lessor from liability to the victim, but to allocate the risk of liability to third parties between the lessor and the lessee (see Castano v Zee-Jay Realty Co., 55 AD3d at 702 ). | 3 | 2009–2024 |
Hogeland v. Sibley
green
2 sentences2023Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reasoned that when an indemnity clause is coupled with an insurance procurement provision, a tenant is obligated to indemnify the landlord for its share of liability, and such agreement does not exempt the landlord from liability to the plaintiff, but allocates the risk to a third party through insurance ( id. ; see also Great N. Ins. 2023Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reasoned that when an indemnity clause is coupled with an insurance procurement provision, a tenant is obligated to indemnify the landlord for its share of liability, and such agreement does not exempt the landlord from liability to the plaintiff, but allocates the risk to a third party through insurance ( id. ; see also Great N. Ins. | 3 | 1980–2023 |
Quevedo v. City of New York
green
2 sentences1990Instead, it merely refers to claims "resulting from the performance of Work or resulting to Work from whatever cause, including acts or omissions and supervisory acts of Contractor or Owner.” Therefore, the only basis for avoiding operation of the indemnification provision is under former section 5-322.1 of the General Obligations Law which, at the time that the subject contract was executed, rendered such a clause unenforceable only to the extent that it purported to indemnify an owner or contractor against liability caused by its sole negligence (Quevedo v City of New York, 56 NY2d 150, 156 1990Instead, it merely refers to claims "resulting from the performance of Work or resulting to Work from whatever cause, including acts or omissions and supervisory acts of Contractor or Owner.” Therefore, the only basis for avoiding operation of the indemnification provision is under former section 5-322.1 of the General Obligations Law which, at the time that the subject contract was executed, rendered such a clause unenforceable only to the extent that it purported to indemnify an owner or contractor against liability caused by its sole negligence (Quevedo v City of New York, 56 NY2d 150, 156 | 3 | 1989–1990 |
Smith v. Hooker Chemical & Plastics Corp.
green
2 sentences2024Furthermore, it is axiomatic that in an indemnity claim, a third party seeking to obtain indemnity for damages, must show that it is actually required to pay the plaintiff ( see Smith v Hooker Chem. & Plastics Corp. , 83 AD2d 199, 202 ). 1985It is an indemnity clause, and a right to indemnity exists when a plaintiff or defendant has been compelled to pay money to a third party which, in justice, the other ought to pay because as between the plaintiff and the defendant there is a duty to avoid such injury to the third party (Smith v Hooker Chem. & Plastics Corp., 83 AD2d 199, 200-201 , lv denied 56 NY2d 645 ). | 2 | 1985–2024 |
Rotuba Extruders, Inc. v. Ceppos
green
2 sentences2024Further, it defines implied contractual indemnity as, "[i]ndemnity that is not expressly provided for by an indemnity clause in an agreement but is nevertheless determined to be reasonably intended by the parties, based on equitable considerations" ( id. ). 2024Further, it defines implied contractual indemnity as, "[i]ndemnity that is not expressly provided for by an indemnity clause in an agreement but is nevertheless determined to be reasonably intended by the parties, based on equitable considerations" ( id. ). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Great Northern Insurance v. Interior Construction Corp.
green
2 sentences2023Co. , 7 NY3d at 415 ). 2023Co. , 7 NY3d at 419 ). | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Flores v. Las Americas Communications, Inc.
green
2 sentences2012When a party is under no legal duty to indemnify, a contract assuming that obligation must be strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed (see Hooper Assoc. v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487 [1989]; Flores v Las Americas Communications, 218 AD2d 595 [1995]). 2012When a party is under no legal duty to indemnify, a contract assuming that obligation must be strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed (see Hooper Assoc. v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487 [1989]; Flores v Las Americas Communications, 218 AD2d 595 [1995]). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Lopez v. Consolidated Edison Co.
green
2 sentences2005Strictly construed, as it must be (see Tonking v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 3 NY3d 486, 490 [2004]; Dunham v Weissman, 281 AD2d 220, 222 [2001], lv denied in part and dismissed in part 96 NY2d 851 [2001]), the contract’s indemnity clause does not clearly create an indemnification obligation in a situation where, as here, the injury complained of was not shown to have been caused by any culpable conduct—either malfeasance or nonfeasance—on the part of Service Force (see Lopez v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 40 NY2d 605 [1976]; Darien Lake Theme Park & Camping Resort, Inc. v Contour Erection 1989Since the indemnity clause, by its own terms, applies to any and all claims for injury arising from any act of Prudential’s employees, it is clear that the indemnity clause requires Prudential to indemnify the county in this situation (see, Lopez v Consolidated Edison Co., 40 NY2d 605, 608-609 ; Vey v Port Auth., 54 NY2d 221, 226-227). | 2 | 1989–2005 |
ITRI BRICK CORP v. Aetna Cas.
green
2 sentences2003Corp. , 89 NY2d 786 [1997]; Carriere v Whiting Turner Contr., supra). 1997Co., 89 NY2d 786 ), and, second, as to whether the negligence, if any, of the subcontractor or a party for whom it was responsible contributed to the accident, in the absence of which the indemnity clause would not apply (see, Malecki v Wal-Mart Stores, 222 AD2d 1010 ). | 2 | 1997–2003 |
Bay Ridge Air Rights, Inc. v. State
green
2 sentences1981(See McDermott v City of New York, 50 NY2d 211 ; Bay Ridge Air Rights v State of New York, 44 NY2d 49 ; Rogers v Dorchester Assoc., 32 NY2d 553 ; Musco v Conte, 22 AD2d 121 .) However, a third-party action does not become an action for indemnity merely because the pleader has so denominated it. 1980And, since the cause of action is not complete until loss is suffered, familiar Statute of Limitations principles dictate that accrual occurs upon payment by the party seeking indemnity (see, e.g., Bay Ridge Air Rights v State of New York, 44 NY2d 49, 54 ; Musco v Conte, 22 AD2d 121, 125-126 [Hopkins, J.]; Occhialino, Contribution, Nineteenth Ann Report of NY Judicial Conference, 1974, at p 229; see, also, Ann., 57 ALR3d 867). 3 Because the indemnity claim is a separate substantive cause of action, independent of the underlying wrong, this accrual rule remains the same, whatever the underlying | 2 | 1980–1981 |
| Mendieta v. 333 Fifth Avenue Ass'n green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| 546-552 West 146th Street LLC v. Arfa green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Pepe v. Center for Jewish History, Inc. green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Mennes v. Syfeld Management, Inc. neutral | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Campos v. 68 East 86th Street Owners Corp. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| DeSario v. SL Green Management LLC green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Vukovich v. 1345 Fee, LLC green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Wolf green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| SIN, Inc. v. Department of Finance green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Velez v. Tishman Foley Partners green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Keena v. Gucci Shops, Inc. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Greenwich Excavating & Construction, Inc. v. Mark J. MacDonald Plumbing & Heating, Inc. green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| In Re the Estate of Klink green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Darien Lake Theme Park & Camping Resort, Inc. v. Contour Erection & Siding Systems, Inc. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority v. Tri-Delta Construction Corp. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| United States Ex Rel. Swafford v. Borgess Medical Center green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Carriere v. Whiting Turner Contracting green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Williams Press v. State of NY green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Helmsley-Spear, Inc. v. New York Blood Center, Inc. green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Namad v. Salomon Inc. green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Fisher v. Society of the New York Hospital green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Thomassen v. J & K Diner, Inc. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| June v. Bill Zikakis Chevrolet, Inc. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Severino v. Schuyler Meadows Club, Inc. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Acstar Insurance v. Teton Enterprises, Inc. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.