Opinion
February 25, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.).
Although plaintiff does not appeal from the denial of its cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the third affirmative defense based on the indemnity agreement entered into between plaintiff's subrogor and defendant-appellant, upon a search of the record (Oringer v. Rotkin, 162 A.D.2d 113), we find such indemnity agreement void as against public policy because it was entered into "in connection with or collateral to" the construction contract between defendant and plaintiff's subrogor (General Obligations Law §§ 5-322.1, 5-323; Brown v. Two Exch. Plaza Partners, 76 N.Y.2d 172). Accordingly, there is no need to reach the issue of whether plaintiff's subrogor executed the indemnity agreement under duress.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.