common-law indemnification claim in New York

2025Additionally, although Rock Group would be entitled to dismissal of the common-law indemnification claim if it, as asserted, subcontracted the actual installation of the sidewalk bridge to RB NY ( see McCarthy , 17 NY3d at 378 ), this court finds that Singh's conclusory testimony that Rock Group subcontracted the actual installation and its supervision to RB NY is insufficient to demonstrate that fact as a matter of law.

2025Additionally, although Rock Group would be entitled to dismissal of the common-law indemnification claim if it, as asserted, subcontracted the actual installation of the sidewalk bridge to RB NY ( see McCarthy , 17 NY3d at 378 ), this court finds that Singh's conclusory testimony that Rock Group subcontracted the actual installation and its supervision to RB NY is insufficient to demonstrate that fact as a matter of law.

2026The Supreme Court also properly denied those branches of D & S's motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the BP defendants' cross-claims for common law indemnification and contribution insofar as asserted against it. "[A] party moving for summary judgment dismissing a common-law indemnification claim can meet its prima facie burden by establishing that the plaintiff's accident was not due to its own negligence" ( Burgos v 14 E. 44 St., LLC , 203 AD3d 688, 689 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Cutler v Thomas , 171 AD3d 860, 861).

2026The Supreme Court also properly denied those branches of D & S's motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the BP defendants' cross-claims for common law indemnification and contribution insofar as asserted against it. "[A] party moving for summary judgment dismissing a common-law indemnification claim can meet its prima facie burden by establishing that the plaintiff's accident was not due to its own negligence" ( Burgos v 14 E. 44 St., LLC , 203 AD3d 688, 689 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Cutler v Thomas , 171 AD3d 860 , 861).

2026A party bringing a common-law indemnification claim does not need to have a contractual relationship with the proposed indemnitor ( see Raquet v Braun , 90 NY2d 177, 183 [1997]).

2023The common-law indemnification claim fails because defendants did not allege a breach of any duty running from third-party defendants to them ( see Raquet v Braun , 90 NY2d 177, 183 [1997]; Seldin v Smith , 76 AD3d 623 , 625 [2d Dept 2010]).

2025As to the common-law indemnification claim against Beeche, AIC "must prove not only that it was not guilty of any negligence beyond the statutory liability but must also prove that [Beeche] was guilty of some negligence that contributed to the causation of the accident for which [AIC] was held liable" to plaintiff ( Correia v Professional Data Mgt. , 259 AD2d 60, 65 [1st Dept 1999]; see Naughton v City of New York , 94 AD3d 1, 10 [1st Dept 2012]).

2025As to the common-law indemnification claim, ACC Construction, as the indemnitee, must show that it was non-negligent and neither caused the accident nor supervised and controlled the injury-producing work ( see Naughton v City of New York, 94 AD3d 1, 6 [1st Dept 2012]).

2012McKinney established, prima facie, that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the common-law indemnification claim by demonstrating that the plaintiffs accident was not due solely to its negligent performance or nonperformance of an act solely within its province (see Schultz v Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Co., 68 AD3d 970, 972 [2009]).

2012Bartlett established, prima facie, that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the common-law indemnification claim by demonstrating that the injured plaintiffs accident was not due solely to its negligent performance or nonperformance of an act solely within its province (see Schultz v Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Co., 68 AD3d 970, 972 [2009]; Roach v AVR Realty Co., LLC, 41 AD3d 821, 824 [2007]).

2012Bartlett established, prima facie, that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the common-law indemnification claim by demonstrating that the injured plaintiffs accident was not due solely to its negligent performance or nonperformance of an act solely within its province (see Schultz v Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Co., 68 AD3d 970, 972 [2009]; Roach v AVR Realty Co., LLC, 41 AD3d 821, 824 [2007]).

2012Bartlett established, prima facie, that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the common-law indemnification claim by demonstrating that the injured plaintiffs accident was not due solely to its negligent performance or nonperformance of an act solely within its province (see Schultz v Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Co., 68 AD3d 970, 972 [2009]; Roach v AVR Realty Co., LLC, 41 AD3d 821, 824 [2007]).

2013Prudential, however, is not entitled to recover fees incurred in prosecuting the common-law indemnification claim (see Chapel v Mitchell, 84 NY2d 345, 348 [1994]).

2013Prudential, however, is not entitled to recover fees incurred in prosecuting the common-law indemnification claim (see Chapel v Mitchell, 84 NY2d 345, 348 [1994]).

2024The common-law indemnification claim remains viable since there are questions of fact as to whether Shawmut's liability to plaintiffs, if any, will be vicarious only ( see Robinson v Brooks Shopping Ctrs., LLC , 148 AD3d 522, 523 [1st Dept 2017]).

2024The common-law indemnification claim remains viable since there are questions of fact as to whether Shawmut's liability to plaintiffs, if any, will be vicarious only ( see Robinson v Brooks Shopping Ctrs., LLC , 148 AD3d 522, 523 [1st Dept 2017]).

2023To the extent that Tishman asserted a common-law indemnification claim, the claim is barred by Workers Compensation Law § 11 because plaintiff did not allege a grave injury ( see Tonking v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. , 3 NY3d 486 490 [2004]; Tavarez , 205 AD3d at 567 ).

2023To the extent that Tishman asserted a common-law indemnification claim, the claim is barred by Workers Compensation Law § 11 because plaintiff did not allege a grave injury ( see Tonking v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. , 3 NY3d 486 490 [2004]; Tavarez , 205 AD3d at 567 ).

2001That claim is incidental to the main action of the plaintiff and, therefore, there can be no recovery for any legal expenses incurred therein (see, Chapel v Mitchell, supra; see also, Hooper Assocs. v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487, 491 ).

1994Moreover, we could not adopt such a rule without simultaneously disparaging the fundamental principle that "the prevailing litigant is ordinarily not entitled to collect a reasonable attorneys’ fee from the loser” (Alyeska Pipeline Co. v Wilder *349 ness Socy., 421 US 240, 247 ; see, Hooper Assocs. v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487, 491 ["attorney’s fees are incidents of litigation and a prevailing party may not collect them from the loser unless an award is authorized by agreement between the parties, statute or court rule”]).

2025Grocery, Inc. , 219 AD3d 450, 452 [internal quotation marks omitted).

2025Grocery, Inc. , 219 AD3d 450, 452 ).

2026However, the indemnitee's obligation to pay the plaintiff must be predicated either on liability by operation of law, such as vicarious liability ( id. at 182-183 ; Mas v Two Bridges Assoc. , 75 NY2d 680, 690 [1990]; McCarthy v Turner Constr., Inc. , 17 NY3d 369, 377-378 [2011]), or on an existing relationship between the indemnitor and the indemnitee, such as in the case of a guarantor and principal ( see e.g.

1998“Since they are in pari delicto, their common liability to plaintiff is apportioned and each tort-feasor pays his ratable part of the loss.” (Mas v Two Bridges Assocs., 75 NY2d 680, 689-690 .) However, in indemnification, which commonly arises in cases of vicarious liability, “a party held legally liable to plaintiff shifts the entire loss to another.” (Supra, at 690.) It is well settled that a common-law indemnification claim does not arise until the party seeking indemnity suffers an out-of-pocket loss.

2026"This may be accomplished by establishing that the moving party had [*3] no duty to maintain the area where the plaintiff was allegedly injured" ( Burgos v 14 E. 44 St., LLC , 203 AD3d at 689; see Davis v Catsimatidis , 129 AD3d 766, 768).

2026"This may be accomplished by establishing that the moving party had [*3] no duty to maintain the area where the plaintiff was allegedly injured" ( Burgos v 14 E. 44 St., LLC , 203 AD3d at 689; see Davis v Catsimatidis , 129 AD3d 766, 768).

2026"This may be accomplished by establishing that the moving party had no duty to maintain the area where the plaintiff was allegedly injured" ( Burgos v 14 E. 44 St., LLC , 203 AD3d at 689; see Crystal v Atlas Roll-Off Corp. , 237 AD3d 1041, 1042).

2026"This may be accomplished by establishing that the moving party had no duty to maintain the area where the plaintiff was allegedly injured" ( Burgos v 14 E. 44 St., LLC , 203 AD3d at 689 ; see Crystal v Atlas Roll-Off Corp. , 237 AD3d 1041 , 1042).

2026The Supreme Court also properly denied those branches of D & S's motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the BP defendants' cross-claims for common law indemnification and contribution insofar as asserted against it. "[A] party moving for summary judgment dismissing a common-law indemnification claim can meet its prima facie burden by establishing that the plaintiff's accident was not due to its own negligence" ( Burgos v 14 E. 44 St., LLC , 203 AD3d 688, 689 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Cutler v Thomas , 171 AD3d 860, 861).

2026The Supreme Court also properly denied those branches of D & S's motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the BP defendants' cross-claims for common law indemnification and contribution insofar as asserted against it. "[A] party moving for summary judgment dismissing a common-law indemnification claim can meet its prima facie burden by establishing that the plaintiff's accident was not due to its own negligence" ( Burgos v 14 E. 44 St., LLC , 203 AD3d 688, 689 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Cutler v Thomas , 171 AD3d 860 , 861).

2026The Supreme Court also properly dismissed 77th Avenue's fourth cross-claim, for common-law indemnification, insofar as asserted against Chikoos. "[A] party moving for summary judgment dismissing a common-law indemnification claim can meet its prima facie burden by establishing that the plaintiff's accident was not due to its own negligence" ( Crutch v 421 Kent Dev., LLC , 192 AD3d 977, 981).

2026The Supreme Court also properly dismissed 77th Avenue's fourth cross-claim, for common-law indemnification, insofar as asserted against Chikoos. "[A] party moving for summary judgment dismissing a common-law indemnification claim can meet its prima facie burden by establishing that the plaintiff's accident was not due to its own negligence" ( Crutch v 421 Kent Dev., LLC , 192 AD3d 977, 981).

2025As to the common-law indemnification claim against Beeche, AIC "must prove not only that it was not guilty of any negligence beyond the statutory liability but must also prove that [Beeche] was guilty of some negligence that contributed to the causation of the accident for which [AIC] was held liable" to plaintiff ( Correia v Professional Data Mgt. , 259 AD2d 60, 65 [1st Dept 1999]; see Naughton v City of New York , 94 AD3d 1, 10 [1st Dept 2012]).

2020Accepting the facts alleged in the third-party complaint as true upon this motion to dismiss, plaintiff's injuries resulted from either his own conduct or that of third-party defendants and, inasmuch as those allegations are not conclusively refuted by either the release or any other proof in the record, Jimerico failed to establish its entitlement to dismissal of the common-law indemnification claim ( see Whitebox Concentrated Convertible Arbitrage Partners, L.P. v Superior Well Servs., Inc. , 20 NY3d 59, 63-64 [2012]; T.

2018Having concluded that the indemnification claim is legally viable, we further conclude, based upon the evidence in the record, that defendant failed to meet its burden of "establish[ing], prima facie, that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the common-law indemnification claim by demonstrating that the [alleged loss] was not due solely to its negligent performance or nonperformance of an act solely within its province" ( Proulx v Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC , 98 AD3d 492, 493 [2d Dept 2012]).

2017For the same reasons, the court properly dismissed the common-law indemnification claim asserted by Iron Horse and Busch against LLC (see McCarthy v Turner Constr., Inc., 17 NY3d 369, 378 [2011]; 87 Chambers, LLC v 77 Reade, LLC, 122 AD3d 540, 542 [1st Dept 2014]).

2017It is well settled that such a claim “requires a showing that the plaintiff and *1113 the defendant owed a duty to third parties, and that the plaintiff discharged the duty which, as between the plaintiff and the defendant, should have been discharged by the defendant” (Murray Bresky Consultants, Ltd v New York Compensation Manager’s Inc., 106 AD3d 1255, 1258 [2013] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]; see Rosado v Proctor & Schwartz, 66 NY2d 21, 24 [1985]; Westbank Contr., Inc. v Rondout Val.