From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haddock v. Fordham Com. Redevelopment Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 26, 1998
247 A.D.2d 327 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 26, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.).


In this personal injury action, where plaintiff, an employee of the electrical subcontractor Monaco, tripped and fell over some construction debris at the work site, questions of fact are presented as to who was responsible for maintaining the scene of the accident, which plaintiff was unable to identify with any specificity. Since much of the possible evidence on this issue appears to be within the knowledge of Monaco or its employees, the third-party plaintiffs should be permitted additional discovery. As to the applicability of the broad indemnification clause in the subcontract with Monaco, determination of that issue must await the finding and apportionment of liability, if any, between the third-party plaintiffs and Monaco ( see, Itri Brick Concrete Corp. v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 786).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Haddock v. Fordham Com. Redevelopment Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 26, 1998
247 A.D.2d 327 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Haddock v. Fordham Com. Redevelopment Corp.

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN HADDOCK, Plaintiff, v. FORDHAM COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT CORP. et…

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

Date published: Feb 26, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 327 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 215

Citing Cases

Maxwell v. Toys "R" U.S.

1 Gen. Oblig., since it impermissibly requires, inter alia, that James A. Smith Contracting, Inc.…

Chun v. Ecco III Enterprises, Inc.

We disagree. The determination as to the applicability of the indemnification clause in the subject…