Opinion
January 8, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.).
Rosen's argument that the contract between Tishman and plaintiff owner Rockefeller University, which requires Tishman to supervise and direct the work, necessarily precludes Tishman's claims for implied indemnification against the subcontractors, has been considered and rejected by this Court on appeals taken by other subcontractors ( 240 A.D.2d 341; 244 A.D.2d 158). As for Rosen's evidence of Tishman's actual supervision of the former's work, we agree with the motion court that it does not conclusively show that Tishman's role was that of Rosen's on-site supervisor as opposed to an occasional advisor kept abreast of progress ( compare, supra, with 232 A.D.2d 155, 156, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 811).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.