From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCarthy v. Turner Const

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 20, 2010
72 A.D.3d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2579.

April 20, 2010.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered September 9, 2009, which denied the motion of defendants owners Boston Properties, Inc. and Times Square Tower Associates, LLC for summary judgment on their cross claim for contribution and common-law indemnification against defendant general contractor John Gallin Son, Inc., and awarded Gallin summary judgment dismissing the cross claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Law Offices of James J. Toomey, New York (Eric P. Tosca of counsel), for appellants.

Malapero Prisco, LLP, New York (Frank J. Lombardo of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.


While the owners, whose liability for plaintiff's injuries was purely statutory, were entitled to contribution or indemnification from the party responsible for the injuries ( Kelly v Diesel Constr. Div. of Carl A. Morse, Inc., 35 NY2d 1), Gallin neither was negligent nor directly supervised and controlled plaintiff's work ( see Reilly v DiGiacomo Son, 261 AD2d 318).

[Prior Case History: 24 Misc 3d 1245(A), 2009 NY Slip Op 51889(U).]


Summaries of

McCarthy v. Turner Const

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 20, 2010
72 A.D.3d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

McCarthy v. Turner Const

Case Details

Full title:JOHN McCARTHY et al., Plaintiffs, v. TURNER CONSTRUCTION, INC., Defendant…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 20, 2010

Citations

72 A.D.3d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 3176
898 N.Y.S.2d 836

Citing Cases

Weber v. Baccarat, Inc.

It is well-settled that a property owner who is liable vicariously under the Labor Law is entitled to…

In re E. 51ST St. Crane Collapse Litig.

Therefore, there is no basis for any contractual indemnification claim against CRSG. As to the common-law…