That is because although a contract may require the named insured to hold harmless and indemnify the indemnitee, where the indemnitee is not listed as an additional insured under the related policy, there are no rights and obligations as between the indemnitee and the insurance carrier. See Boyle v. City of New York, 655 N.Y.S.2d 23, 24 (1st Dep't 1997) (noting that additional insured status is distinct from contractual indemnity). Therefore, the contractual agreements to indemnify do not independently obligate Underwriters to provide coverage to Kingsway in the underlying action.

Div. 2009); McNamee Const. Corp. v. City of New Rochelle, 817 N.Y.S.2d 295, 296 (App. Div. 2006); Boyle v. City of New York, 655 N.Y.S.2d 23, 24 (App. Div. 1997); Spencer v. B.A. Painting Co., 638 N.Y.S.2d 37, 38 (App. Div. 1996) (holding that "insurance procurement clauses are entirely independent of indemnification provisions"); Macri v. Park S. Associates, 604 N.Y.S.2d 92, 93 (App. Div. 1993).

Defendant does not stand to be affected by the court's permission to grant plaintiff leave to add a conversion claim against Pignatelli and Pier 59, which had separate definable interests. If the order were reversed, defendant, as an entity, would not have its right to a full judgment in its favor directly affected ( see Boyle v. City of New York, 237 A.D.2d 230, 655 N.Y.S.2d 23 [1st Dept.1997]; see also Midland Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 178 A.D.2d 146, 147, 577 N.Y.S.2d 14 [1st Dept.1991] ). “That the adjudication may remotely or contingently affect interests which the party represents does not give it a right to appeal” (State of New York v. Philip Morris Inc., 61 A.D.3d 575, 578, 877 N.Y.S.2d 291 [1st Dept.2009], appeal dismissed15 N.Y.3d 898, 912 N.Y.S.2d 568, 938 N.E.2d 1002 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

The appeal must be dismissed. Plaintiff is not an "aggrieved party" (CPLR 5511) so as to have standing on appeal to dispute the resolution of the narrow issue — asserted in the third-party action and not affecting the validity of plaintiff's complaint — regarding contractual indemnification between the Town and Anjo ( see D'Ambrosio v City of New York, 55 NY2d 454, 459-460; Murray v City of New York, 43 AD3d 429, 430; see also Duffy v Horton Mem. Hosp., 66 NY2d 473, 476, n 3 [1985]; Monterroza v State Univ. Constr. Fund, 56 AD3d 629, 629; Boyle v City of New York, 237 AD2d 230, 230-231).

Additionally, Brown and Fifth & 67th are not additional insureds under the policy either because "entitlement to additional insured status and contractual indemnification are distinct" (see Lexington Ins. Co., 182 A.D.3d at 463). "[C]ontractual indemnification obligation [is] separate and distinct from [insurer's] duty to defend and indemnify under the additional insured endorsement of its policy" (WDF Inc. v Harleysville Ins. Co. of N.Y., 193 A.D.3d 667, 667 [1st Dept 2021]; Boyle v City of New York, 237 A.D.2d 230, 231 [1st Dept 1997] [noting that additional insured status is distinct from contractual indemnity]). Defendants' contention that plaintiff is required to provide coverage per the contract which includes Statement of Subcontractor Indemnification does not raise an issue of fact.

While Pacific acknowledges that its policy covers the contractual indemnification that the Slosbergs owe to CPS and Picaso, this is an obligation Pacific owes to the Slosbergs, rather than to CPS and Picaso (see Boyle v City of New York, 237 AD2d 230,231 [1st Dept 1997] [noting that additional insured status is distinct from contractual indemnity]). Moreover, the Pacific policy "does not provide automatic additional insured coverage for parties indemnified under an 'insured contract'" (Yoda, LLC v National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 88 AD3d 506, 508 [1st Dept 2011], citing Kassis v Ohio Cos. Ins. Co., 12 NY3d 595 [2009] [involving a tenant's insurance policy that provided automatic additional insured coverage to landlord through the lease agreement]).

While Pacific acknowledges that its policy covers the contractual indemnification that the Slosbergs owe to CPS and Picaso, this is an obligation Pacific owes to the Slosbergs, rather than to CPS and Picaso ( see Boyle v. City of New York, 237 A.D.2d 230, 231 [1st Dept 1997] [noting that additional insured status is distinct from contractual indemnity] ). Moreover, the Pacific policy “does not provide automatic additional insured coverage for parties indemnified under an insured contract' “ (Yoda, LLC v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 88 AD3d 506, 508 [1st Dept 2011], citing Kassis v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 12 NY3d 595 [2009] [involving a tenant's insurance policy that provided automatic additional insured coverage to landlord through the lease agreement] ).