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.
7 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Godoy v. Abamaster of Miami, Inc.green2 sentences2023However, Chelsea's claim for contribution against Vachris should have been dismissed as Chelsea's liability to plaintiff is only vicarious under Labor Law § 240(1) ( see Burgos v 213 W. 23rd Street Group LLC , 48 AD3d 283 , 284 [1st Dept 2008][Only "(a) negligent party who is subject to liability under Labor Law § 240 may seek contribution from another party whose culpable fault was also a cause of the injury"] [emphasis added]; Godoy v Abamaster of Miami , 302 AD2d 57, 61-62 [2d Dept 2003] ["Contribution is available where two or more tortfeasors combine to cause an injury and is determined i 2023However, Chelsea's claim for contribution against Vachris should have been dismissed as Chelsea's liability to plaintiff is only vicarious under Labor Law § 240(1) ( see Burgos v 213 W. 23rd Street Group LLC , 48 AD3d 283 , 284 [1st Dept 2008][Only "(a) negligent party who is subject to liability under Labor Law § 240 may seek contribution from another party whose culpable fault was also a cause of the injury"] [emphasis added]; Godoy v Abamaster of Miami , 302 AD2d 57, 61-62 [2d Dept 2003] ["Contribution is available where two or more tortfeasors combine to cause an injury and is determined i | 2 | 2 |
Dutton v. Charles Pankow Builders, Ltd.green2 sentences2015Nor does the subject indemnification provision violate the prohibition against exempting owners and contractors from liability for negligence (General Obligations Law § 5-322.1) since it is limited by the phrases, "[t]o the fullest extent permitted by law," and "regardless of whether or not such claim, damage, loss or expense is caused in part by [Chelsea]" ( see Dutton v Pankow Bldrs. , 296 AD2d 321 [1st Dept 2002] [emphasis added], lv denied 99 NY2d 511 [2003]). 2015Nor does the subject indemnification provision violate the prohibition against exempting owners and contractors from liability for negligence (General Obligations Law § 5-322.1) since it is limited by the phrases, “[t]o the fullest extent permitted by law,” and “regardless of whether or not such claim, damage, loss or expense is caused in part by [Chelsea]” (emphasis added; see Dutton v Pankow Bldrs., 296 AD2d 321 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 511 [2003]). | 1 | 2 |
Cunningham v. Alexander's King Plaza, LLCgreen1 sentence2007Chelsea established that the right to indemnification was based upon an express contract (see Cunningham v Alexander’s King Plaza, LLC, 22 AD3d 703, 707 [2005]), and an award of conditional summary judgment on the cross claim is appropriate. | 1 | 1 |
Izrailev v. Ficarra Furniture of Long Island, Inc.green1 sentence2007The cable box was affixed to a wall in the garage and is properly considered a part of the building for the purposes of the statute (see Izrailev v Ficarra Furniture of Long Is., 70 NY2d 813, 815 [1987]; Gonzalez v City of New York, 269 AD2d 493 [2000]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burgos v. 213 West 23rd Street Group LLC
neutral
2 sentences2023However, Chelsea's claim for contribution against Vachris should have been dismissed as Chelsea's liability to plaintiff is only vicarious under Labor Law § 240(1) ( see Burgos v 213 W. 23rd Street Group LLC , 48 AD3d 283 , 284 [1st Dept 2008][Only "(a) negligent party who is subject to liability under Labor Law § 240 may seek contribution from another party whose culpable fault was also a cause of the injury"] [emphasis added]; Godoy v Abamaster of Miami , 302 AD2d 57, 61-62 [2d Dept 2003] ["Contribution is available where two or more tortfeasors combine to cause an injury and is determined i 2023However, Chelsea's claim for contribution against Vachris should have been dismissed as Chelsea's liability to plaintiff is only vicarious under Labor Law § 240(1) ( see Burgos v 213 W. 23rd Street Group LLC , 48 AD3d 283 , 284 [1st Dept 2008][Only "(a) negligent party who is subject to liability under Labor Law § 240 may seek contribution from another party whose culpable fault was also a cause of the injury"] [emphasis added]; Godoy v Abamaster of Miami , 302 AD2d 57, 61-62 [2d Dept 2003] ["Contribution is available where two or more tortfeasors combine to cause an injury and is determined i | 2 | 2023–2023 |
New Hampshire Insurance v. MF Global, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Co. v MF Global, Inc. , 108 AD3d 463 , 467 [1st Dept 2013]). 2015Although plaintiff neither moved for summary judgment on the issue of Chelsea’s notice of the uneven risers in the stairway nor appealed the motion court’s denial of his informal request for summary judgment upon a search of the record, we note that there was no basis for a search of the record to grant him summary judgment since his informally raised claim was unrelated to the subject of Chelsea’s motion (New Hampshire Ins. *544 Co. v MF Global, Inc., 108 AD3d 463 , 467 [1st Dept 2013]). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Gonzalez v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2007The cable box was affixed to a wall in the garage and is properly considered a part of the building for the purposes of the statute (see Izrailev v Ficarra Furniture of Long Is., 70 NY2d 813, 815 [1987]; Gonzalez v City of New York, 269 AD2d 493 [2000]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Martin v. Hacker
green
1 sentence1993The Appellate Division modified, ruling that "Supreme Court incorrectly found that triable issues of fact were presented concerning the issue of whether the warnings provided by defendants regarding reserpine and HCT to the medical profession were adequate” (Martin v Hacker, 185 AD2d 553, 554 ) and concluding that "defendants are entitled to summary judgment” because "the warnings were adequate as a matter of law” (id., at 555). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.