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.
10 New York opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hooper Associates Ltd. v. AGS Computers, Inc.green2 sentences2013The subject indemnification clause provides that Hylan “shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless [Time Warner] . . . against and from: claims, demands, damages, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees, court and other proceeding costs and all other costs incurred to enforce the indemnity granted in this Section) . . . threatened, brought or instituted, arising out of or in any way connected with the acts or omissions of [Hylan] . . . except to the extent attributable to the negligence of [Time Warner].” Such language is clear and unambiguous, and, pursuan 2013The subject indemnification clause provides that Hylan “shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless [Time Warner] . . . against and from: claims, demands, damages, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees, court and other proceeding costs and all other costs incurred to enforce the indemnity granted in this Section) . . . threatened, brought or instituted, arising out of or in any way connected with the acts or omissions of [Hylan] . . . except to the extent attributable to the negligence of [Time Warner].” Such language is clear and unambiguous, and, pursuan | 2 | 2 |
McCleary v. City of Glens Fallsgreen1 sentence2007It was triggered when claims were presented alleging that the installation was a cause of the underlying fire and injuries (see McCleary v City of Glens Falls, 32 AD3d 605, 609-610 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
Toledo v. Long Island Jewish Medical Centergreen1 sentence2005Ctr., 309 AD2d 921, 922 [2003] [“the subject indemnification clause only related to ‘claims . . . arising out of and in connection with the purchase and/or use of the goods covered by [the] [purchase] order’ between the parties”]). | 1 | 1 |
Richard Drzewinski v. Atlantic Scaffold & Ladder Co.green1 sentence2003“A party is entitled to full contractual indemnification [for damages incurred in a personal injury suit] provided that the ‘intention to indemnify can be clearly implied from the language and purposes of the entire agreement and the surrounding facts and circumstances’ [citations omitted]” (Drze winski v Atlantic Scaffold & Ladder Co., 70 NY2d 774, 777 [1987]). | 1 | 1 |
Castelli v. KDI, Atlantic Foods, Inc.green1 sentence2003Foods, 281 AD2d 505, 506 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
Angwin v. SRF Partnership, L. P.green1 sentence2003Contrary to LIJ’s contention, the subject indemnification clause only related to “claims * * * arising out of and in connection with the purchase and/or use of the goods covered by [the] [purchase] order” between the parties, and did not relate to personal injuries arising out of the performance of work (see Angwin v SRF Partnership, 285 AD2d 568, 569-570 [2001]; Castelli v KDI, Atl. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Seymour v. Hovnanian
green
1 sentence2024In Seymour v Hovanian, the First Department found that the phrase "including claims for personal injury or property damages sustained by any contractor, worker, or any other third or non-party," contained in the subject indemnification clause necessarily indicated that the provision was broader than third-party claims. 211 AD3d 549 (1st Dept 2022). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Lindquist v. C & C Landscape Contractors, Inc.
green
1 sentence2009Although the owners established as a matter of law that they were not negligent in causing the plaintiffs injury (see McComish v Luciano’s Italian Rest., 56 AD3d 534 [2008]; Valenti v 400 Carlls Path Realty Corp., 52 AD3d 696 [2008]; Lindquist v C & C Landscape Contrs., Inc., 38 AD3d 616 [2007]), they failed to establish as a matter of law that the negligence of the general contractor did not contribute to the accident. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Valenti v. 400 Carlls Path Realty Corp.
green
1 sentence2009Although the owners established as a matter of law that they were not negligent in causing the plaintiffs injury (see McComish v Luciano’s Italian Rest., 56 AD3d 534 [2008]; Valenti v 400 Carlls Path Realty Corp., 52 AD3d 696 [2008]; Lindquist v C & C Landscape Contrs., Inc., 38 AD3d 616 [2007]), they failed to establish as a matter of law that the negligence of the general contractor did not contribute to the accident. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Ruhland v. John W. Cowper Co.
neutral
1 sentence2002Even assuming that the subject indemnification clause does not violate General Obligations Law § 5-321, its motion was properly denied on the ground that the subject indemnification clause, viewed in the context of the entire lease, does not evince an “unmistakable intent” to obligate tenants to indemnify the landlord for injuries to third persons caused by the landlord’s own negligence with respect to its nondelegable duty under Building Code (Administrative Code of City of NY) §§ 27-128 and 27-375 to provide a handrail for the stairway on which plaintiff fell (see, Hogeland v Sibley, Lindsay | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Ruhland v. JOHN W. COWPER CO., INC.
neutral
1 sentence2002Even assuming that the subject indemnification clause does not violate General Obligations Law § 5-321, its motion was properly denied on the ground that the subject indemnification clause, viewed in the context of the entire lease, does not evince an “unmistakable intent” to obligate tenants to indemnify the landlord for injuries to third persons caused by the landlord’s own negligence with respect to its nondelegable duty under Building Code (Administrative Code of City of NY) §§ 27-128 and 27-375 to provide a handrail for the stairway on which plaintiff fell (see, Hogeland v Sibley, Lindsay | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Corazza v. Jacobs
green
1 sentence2002We modify only to deny plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees, since the subject indemnification clause does not require the tenant to reimburse the landlord for counsel fees expended in an action commenced by the landlord to obtain a declaratory judgment construing the lease (cf, Corazza v Jacobs, 277 AD2d 52, 53 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Hogeland v. Sibley
green
1 sentence2002Even assuming that the subject indemnification clause does not violate General Obligations Law § 5-321, its motion was properly denied on the ground that the subject indemnification clause, viewed in the context of the entire lease, does not evince an “unmistakable intent” to obligate tenants to indemnify the landlord for injuries to third persons caused by the landlord’s own negligence with respect to its nondelegable duty under Building Code (Administrative Code of City of NY) §§ 27-128 and 27-375 to provide a handrail for the stairway on which plaintiff fell (see, Hogeland v Sibley, Lindsay | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.