Crutch v. 421 Kent Dev., LLC

16 Citing cases

  1. Mingji Ave4 Realty, LLC v. Colony Ins. Co.

    721 F. Supp. 3d 199 (E.D.N.Y. 2024)

    was therefore directly concerned with the underlying agreement, see Crutch v. 421 Kent Dev., LLC, 192 A.D.3d 982, 146 N.Y.S.3d 151, 154 (2d Dep't 2021). The third involved an insurance policy that expressly stated that it would provide additional insurance for any entity that had a "work contract" with the insured, requiring the court to in turn analyze the underlying "work contract," Trapani v. 10 Arial Way Assoc., 301 A.D.2d 644, 755 N.Y.S.2d 396, 398 (2d Dep't 2003); because the Policy here makes no reference to an underlying contract, Trapani is not instructive.

  2. NYU Langone Hosps. v. Robinson

    2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 666 (N.Y. App. Div. 2025)

    However, the Fund only attached portions of the SPD to its motion. Since the Fund failed to attach the document in its entirety, its evidence was inconclusive, and failed to establish that Robinson had no cause of action (see Fricano v Law Offs. of Tisha Adams, LLC, 194 A.D.3d 1016, 1018; Crutch v 421 Kent Dev., LLC, 192 A.D.3d 982, 983-984). For these reasons, we affirm the order insofar as appealed from.

  3. Caracciolo v. SHS Ralph, LLC

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 2036 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    "[T]he right to contractual indemnification depends upon the specific language of the contract" (Cando v Ajay Gen. Contr. Co. Inc., 200 A.D.3d 750, 752 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "The promise to indemnify should not be found unless it can be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire agreement and the surrounding circumstances" (Crutch v 421 Kent Dev., LLC, 192 A.D.3d 982, 983 [internal quotation marks omitted]). In addition, a promise in connection with a contract relative to the construction of a building purporting to indemnify or hold harmless the promisee against liability for bodily injury caused by the negligence of the promisee is unenforceable (see General Obligations Law § 5-322.1[1]; Brooks v Judlau Contr., Inc., 11 N.Y.3d 204, 207; Brown v Two Exch. Plaza Partners, 76 N.Y.2d at 179-180).

  4. Castro v. Wythe Gardens, LLC

    217 A.D.3d 822 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 12 times

    "[I]t is elementary that the right to contractual indemnification depends upon the specific language of the contract" ( Cando v. Ajay Gen. Contr. Co. Inc., 200 A.D.3d 750, 752, 160 N.Y.S.3d 261 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "The promise to indemnify should not be found unless it can be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire agreement and the surrounding circumstances" ( Crutch v. 421 Kent Dev., LLC, 192 A.D.3d 982, 983, 146 N.Y.S.3d 151 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the contract between Express Builders and Bayport Construction states that Bayport must indemnify Express against all liability "arising out of or resulting from the Work covered by this Contract Agreement to the extent such Work was performed by or contracted through" Bayport Construction.

  5. Meadowbrook Pointe Dev. Corp. v. Concrete

    214 A.D.3d 965 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 12 times

    " ‘A provision in a construction contract cannot be interpreted as requiring the procurement of additional insured coverage unless such a requirement is expressly and specifically stated. In addition, contract language that merely requires the purchase of insurance will not be read as also requiring that a contracting party be named as an additional insured’ " ( Crutch v. 421 Kent Dev., LLC, 192 A.D.3d 982, 984, 146 N.Y.S.3d 151, quoting Trapani v. 10 Arial Way Assoc., 301 A.D.2d 644, 647, 755 N.Y.S.2d 396 ). Thus, a party seeking damages for breach of an agreement to procure insurance naming it as an additional insured must demonstrate that a contract provision required that such insurance be procured naming it as an additional insured and that the provision was not complied with (seeBreland–Marrow v. RXR Realty, LLC, 208 A.D.3d 627, 629, 173 N.Y.S.3d 601 ; Rodriguez v. Savoy Boro Park Assoc. Ltd. Partnership, 304 A.D.2d 738, 739, 759 N.Y.S.2d 107 ).

  6. Meadowbrook Pointe Dev. Corp. v. F & G Concrete & Brick Indus.

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 1669 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

    "'A provision in a construction contract cannot be interpreted as requiring the procurement of additional insured coverage unless such a requirement is expressly and specifically stated. In addition, contract language that merely requires the purchase of insurance will not be read as also requiring that a contracting party be named as an additional insured'" (Crutch v 421 Kent Dev., LLC, 192 A.D.3d 982, 984, quoting Trapani v 10 Arial Way Assoc., 301 A.D.2d 644, 647). Thus, a party seeking damages for breach of an agreement to procure insurance naming it as an additional insured must demonstrate that a contract provision required that such insurance be procured naming it as an additional insured and that the provision was not complied with (see Breland-Marrow v RXR Realty, LLC, 208 A.D.3d 627, 629; Rodriguez v Savoy Boro Park Assoc. Ltd. Partnership, 304 A.D.2d 738, 739). Summary judgment dismissing a cause of action alleging failure to procure additional insured coverage is warranted where the movant demonstrates, prima facie, that it procured the requisite insurance (see Georges v Resorts World Casino N.Y. City, 189 A.D.3d 1549, 1551).

  7. Cobblestone Foods, LLC v. Branded Concept Dev., Inc.

    200 A.D.3d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    In opposition, the defendant third-party plaintiff, Branded Concept Development, Inc. (hereinafter Branded Concept), failed to raise a triable issue of fact Further, the third-party defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the third-party causes of action for common-law and contractual indemnification insofar as asserted against each of them, and in opposition, Branded Concept failed to raise a triable issue of fact (seeChatham Towers, Inc. v. Castle Restoration & Const., Inc., 151 A.D.3d 419, 56 N.Y.S.3d 74 ; cf. Crutch v. 421 Kent Dev., LLC, 192 A.D.3d 982, 146 N.Y.S.3d 151 ). Branded Concept's remaining contentions are without merit.

  8. Cobblestone Foods, LLC v. Branded Concept Dev.

    No. 2019-06292 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 15, 2021)

    Further, the third-party defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the third-party causes of action for common-law and contractual indemnification insofar as asserted against each of them, and in opposition, Branded Concept failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Chatham Towers, Inc. v Castle Restoration & Const., Inc., 151 A.D.3d 419; cf. Crutch v 421 Kent Dev., LLC, 192 A.D.3d 982).

  9. Andeliz v. Hanac Corona Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 33901 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    HCHDFC, H-Inc. and Bruno seek contractual indemnification against JW Elec, based on the subcontract agreement (NYSCEF Doc. No. 144) between Bruno and JW Elec., alleging they were not at fault for plaintiffs accident, did not control plaintiffs work and did not create or have notice of any alleged dangerous condition. "The right to contractual indemnification depends upon the specific language of the contract" (Crutch v 421 Kent Development, LLC, 192 A.D.3d 982, 983 [2d Dept. 2021]). "The promise to indemnify I should not be found unless it can be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire agreement and the surrounding circumstances" (Seiis v Town of North Hempstead, 213 A.D.3d 878, 880 [2d Dept. 2023]).

  10. Piechowicz v. TechniCo Constr. Servs.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 32338 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    "The right to contractual indemnification depends upon the specific language of the contract" (Crutch v 421 Kent Development, LLC, 192 A.D.3d 982, 983 [2d Dept 2021]). "The promise to indemnify should not be found unless it can be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire agreement and the surrounding circumstances" (Selis v Town of North Hempstead, 213 A.D.3d 878, 880 [2d Dept 2023]).