Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 New York opinions name it 1 courts 2021–2026 13 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burgos v. 14 E. 44 St., LLCgreen2 sentences2025"A party that moves for summary judgment dismissing a claim for contractual indemnification must make a prima facie showing that it was not contractually obligated to indemnify the party asserting the indemnification claim" ( Burgos v 14 E. 44 St., LLC , 203 AD3d at 689 ). 2025"A party that moves for summary judgment dismissing a claim for contractual indemnification must make a prima facie showing that it was not contractually obligated to indemnify the party asserting the indemnification claim" ( Burgos v 14 E. 44 St., LLC , 203 AD3d at 689 ). | 2 | 8 |
Garcia v. Fed LI, LLCgreen2 sentences2026"A party [moving] for summary judgment dismissing a claim for contractual indemnification must make a prima facie showing that it was not contractually obligated to indemnify the party asserting the indemnification claim" ( Garcia v Fed LI, LLC , 239 AD3d 942 , 946 [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2026"A party [moving] for summary judgment dismissing a claim for contractual indemnification must make a prima facie showing that it was not contractually obligated to indemnify the party asserting the indemnification claim" ( Garcia v Fed LI, LLC , 239 AD3d 942, 946 [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 2 | 2 |
Meadowbrook Pointe Dev. Corp. v. F&G Concrete & Brick Indus., Inc.green2 sentences2026Corp. v F & G Concrete & Brick Indus., Inc. , 214 AD3d 965, 970, quoting Burgos v 14 E. 44 St., LLC , 203 AD3d 688, 689). 2026Corp. v F & G Concrete & Brick Indus., Inc. , 214 AD3d 965, 970, quoting Burgos v 14 E. 44 St., LLC , 203 AD3d 688, 689). | 1 | 5 |
Assevero v. Hamilton & Church Properties, LLCgreen2 sentences2023"A party that moves for summary judgment dismissing a claim for contractual indemnification must make a prima facie showing that it was not contractually obligated to indemnify the party asserting the indemnification claim" ( Burgos v 14 E. 44 St., LLC , 203 AD3d at 689 ; see Assevero v Hamilton & Church Props., LLC , 131 AD3d 553, 558 ). 2022A party that moves for summary judgment dismissing a claim for contractual indemnification must make a prima facie showing that it was not contractually obligated to indemnify the party asserting the indemnification claim ( see Assevero v Hamilton & Church Props., LLC , 131 AD3d 553, 558 ). | 1 | 3 |
Tolpa v. One Astoria Square, LLCgreen2 sentences2023"This may be accomplished by showing that, under the circumstances, an indemnification clause in a contract between the parties either was not triggered or was otherwise inapplicable" ( Burgos v 14 E. 44 St., LLC , 203 AD3d at 689 ; see Tolpa v One Astoria Sq., LLC , 125 AD3d 755, 756 ). 2022This may be accomplished by showing that, under the circumstances, an indemnification clause in a contract [*2]between the parties either was not triggered or was otherwise inapplicable ( see Tolpa v One Astoria Sq., LLC , 125 AD3d 755, 756 ; Simon v Granite Bldg. 2, LLC , 114 AD3d 749 , 755; cf. Sherry v Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P. , 67 AD3d 992, 995-996 ). | 1 | 2 |
Errazuri v. E Food Supermarket, Inc.green2 sentences2026"The promise to indemnify should not be found unless it can be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire agreement and the surrounding circumstances" ( Erazzuri v E Supermarket, Inc. , 228 AD3d 732, 734 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "'A party that moves for summary judgment dismissing a claim for contractual indemnification must make a prima facie showing that it was not contractually obligated to indemnify the party asserting the indemnification claim'" ( Meadowbrook Pointe Dev. 2026"The promise to indemnify should not be found unless it can be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire agreement and the surrounding circumstances" ( Erazzuri v E Supermarket, Inc. , 228 AD3d 732, 734 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "'A party that moves for summary judgment dismissing a claim for contractual indemnification must make a prima facie showing that it was not contractually obligated to indemnify the party asserting the indemnification claim'" ( Meadowbrook Pointe Dev. | 1 | 1 |
Selis v. Town of N. Hempsteadgreen2 sentences2026"This may be accomplished by showing that, under the circumstances, an indemnification clause in the contract between the parties either was not triggered or was otherwise inapplicable" ( Burgos v 14 E. 44 St., LLC , 203 AD3d 688, 689 ; see Selis v Town of N. Hempstead , 213 AD3d 878, 880 ). 2026"This may be accomplished by showing that, under the circumstances, an indemnification clause in the contract between the parties either was not triggered or was otherwise inapplicable" ( Burgos v 14 E. 44 St., LLC , 203 AD3d 688, 689; see Selis v Town of N. Hempstead , 213 AD3d 878, 880). | 1 | 1 |
Dow v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.green1 sentence2025"A party that moves for summary judgment dismissing a cause of action for contractual indemnification must make a prima facie showing that it was not contractually obligated to indemnify the party asserting the indemnification claim" ( Crutch v 421 Kent Dev., LLC , 192 AD3d at 983; see Dow v Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. , 226 AD3d 648 ). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ascencio v. Briarcrest at Macy Manor
green
2 sentences2025Here, JPS established, prima facie, that it was the injured plaintiff's employer and that it did not expressly agree to contractually indemnify the MPS entities pursuant to a written contract ( see Gikas v 42-51 Hunter St., LLC , 134 AD3d 987, 989 ; Ascencio v Briarcrest at Macy Manor, LLC , 60 AD3d 606, 608 ). 2025Here, JPS established, prima facie, that it was the injured plaintiff's employer and that it did not expressly agree to contractually indemnify the MPS entities pursuant to a written contract ( see Gikas v 42-51 Hunter St., LLC , 134 AD3d 987, 989 ; Ascencio v Briarcrest at Macy Manor, LLC , 60 AD3d 606, 608 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Gikas v. 42-51 Hunter Street, LLC
neutral
2 sentences2025Here, JPS established, prima facie, that it was the injured plaintiff's employer and that it did not expressly agree to contractually indemnify the MPS entities pursuant to a written contract ( see Gikas v 42-51 Hunter St., LLC , 134 AD3d 987, 989 ; Ascencio v Briarcrest at Macy Manor, LLC , 60 AD3d 606, 608 ). 2025Here, JPS established, prima facie, that it was the injured plaintiff's employer and that it did not expressly agree to contractually indemnify the MPS entities pursuant to a written contract ( see Gikas v 42-51 Hunter St., LLC , 134 AD3d 987, 989 ; Ascencio v Briarcrest at Macy Manor, LLC , 60 AD3d 606, 608 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Simon v. Granite Building 2, LLC
green
1 sentence2022This may be accomplished by showing that, under the circumstances, an indemnification clause in a contract [*2]between the parties either was not triggered or was otherwise inapplicable ( see Tolpa v One Astoria Sq., LLC , 125 AD3d 755, 756 ; Simon v Granite Bldg. 2, LLC , 114 AD3d 749 , 755; cf. Sherry v Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P. , 67 AD3d 992, 995-996 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Sherry v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.
green
1 sentence2022This may be accomplished by showing that, under the circumstances, an indemnification clause in a contract [*2]between the parties either was not triggered or was otherwise inapplicable ( see Tolpa v One Astoria Sq., LLC , 125 AD3d 755, 756 ; Simon v Granite Bldg. 2, LLC , 114 AD3d 749 , 755; cf. Sherry v Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P. , 67 AD3d 992, 995-996 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.