From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Santora v. Greater New York Mutual Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 18, 1971
36 A.D.2d 929 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Opinion

May 18, 1971


Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 18, 1971, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and defendant-appellant's motion for summary judgment granted; and upon the determination of this court, the clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of appellant S.S. Silberblatt, Inc., declaring that the contract between the defendant-appellant (Silberblatt) and the Housing Authority of the City of New York for the construction of apartment Building No. 2, Wycoff Gardens, and particularly article 36 of the contract, did not require that Silberblatt carry public liability insurance covering bodily injuries sustained on the job by an employee of the contractor or a subcontractor and did not impose an obligation upon Silberblatt to provide in its contracts with subcontractors that they carry public liability insurance which would afford coverage and protection for bodily injuries sustained on the job by the employees of the contractor or subcontractors; and declaring that the plaintiff does not have a valid cause of action as a third-party beneficiary against Silberblatt for alleged breach of contract arising from the alleged failure of Silberblatt or Carlson Hoist Machinery Co., Inc., to carry public liability insurance affording coverage for the injuries sustained by plaintiff on January 20, 1966 or arising from the failure of Silberblatt to require the said subcontractor Carlson to carry such insurance. The contract between Silberblatt and the Housing Authority provided that the general contractor (Silberblatt) "carry Public Liability Insurance as respects bodily injuries or death suffered or alleged to have been suffered as a result of any accident occurring from or by reason of or in the course of the operations under this Contract, whether occurring by reason of the acts or omissions of the Contractor or any subcontractor, by any person or persons not employed by the Contractor or any subcontractor of his, insuring the Contractor and the said subcontractors against loss or liability imposed by law upon the Contractor and the said subcontractors, or either, for damages on account of such injuries or death." These provisions, in plain and unambiguous language, limit the obligation of the contractor to furnish public liability insurance providing for indemnification of bodily injury claims "by any person or persons not employed by the Contractor or any subcontractor of his". There is nothing in the contract indicating an intent that the provisions thereof for the furnishing by the contractor of public liability insurance were to benefit or create any obligation to employees of a contractor or subcontractor. The record is devoid of a showing of any such intent, and no issue of fact is presented with reference to the alleged existence thereof. Lacking such intent, plaintiff has no rights as a third-party beneficiary. (See 10 N.Y. Jur., Contracts, § 239; Ramos v. Shumavon, 21 A.D.2d 4, affd. 15 N.Y.2d 610; Snyder Plumbing Heating Corp. v. Purcell, 9 A.D.2d 505; Resinol v. Valentine Dolls, Inc., 14 A.D.2d 853.)

Concur — Capozzoli, J.P., Nunez, Kupferman, Steuer and Eager, JJ.


Summaries of

Santora v. Greater New York Mutual Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 18, 1971
36 A.D.2d 929 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)
Case details for

Santora v. Greater New York Mutual Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH SANTORA, Respondent, v. GREATER NEW YORK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY…

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

Date published: May 18, 1971

Citations

36 A.D.2d 929 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Citing Cases

Conti v. Pettibone Companies, Inc.

It is well established that the law of New York does not impose liability upon an engineer, who is engaged to…

Cerullo v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co.

This position is untenable. A third-party beneficiary cannot enforce a contract in his favor unless the…