From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martinez v. Tishman Construction Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 23, 1996
227 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Summary

In Martinez, the First Department affirmed the judgment of the trial court that the general contractor was not entitled to common-law or contractual indemnification from the third-party defendant subcontractor because "[t]here is no evidence that [the third-party defendant] was negligent or otherwise liable for the injuries sustained by plaintiff (who was not an employee, subcontractor or agent of [third-party defendant]); that plaintiff's accident arose out of, in connection with, or as a consequence of the performance of [its] work; or that [it] maintained any control over the worksite."

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. City of N.Y.

Opinion

May 23, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.).


The IAS Court properly determined that appellants, as general contractor for the construction project, were not entitled to common-law or contractual indemnification from third-party defendant Heydt. There is no evidence that Heydt was negligent or otherwise liable for the injuries sustained by plaintiff (who was not an employee, subcontractor or agent of Heydt); that plaintiff's accident arose out of, in connection with, or as a consequence of the performance of Heydt's work; or that Heydt maintained any control over the worksite ( Brown v. Two Exch. Plaza Partners, 146 A.D.2d 129, 135-136, affd 76 N.Y.2d 172).

The IAS Court also properly determined that Heydt was not liable to appellants for contractual indemnification or breach of contract under the insurance procurement provisions of the contract inasmuch as Heydt had fulfilled its contractual obligation to procure proper liability insurance on behalf of appellants to cover any negligence by Heydt arising from losses within the scope of the work performed by Heydt ( New York Univ. v. Royal Ins. Co., 200 A.D.2d 527; Clapper v. County of Albany, 188 A.D.2d 774; Dayton Beach Park No. 1 Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 175 A.D.2d 854, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 864).

We have considered appellants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Martinez v. Tishman Construction Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 23, 1996
227 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

In Martinez, the First Department affirmed the judgment of the trial court that the general contractor was not entitled to common-law or contractual indemnification from the third-party defendant subcontractor because "[t]here is no evidence that [the third-party defendant] was negligent or otherwise liable for the injuries sustained by plaintiff (who was not an employee, subcontractor or agent of [third-party defendant]); that plaintiff's accident arose out of, in connection with, or as a consequence of the performance of [its] work; or that [it] maintained any control over the worksite."

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. City of N.Y.
Case details for

Martinez v. Tishman Construction Corporation

Case Details

Full title:MANUEL MARTINEZ et al., Plaintiffs, v. TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION et…

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

Date published: May 23, 1996

Citations

227 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
642 N.Y.S.2d 675

Citing Cases

Waldron v. The City of New York

If an insurance company refuses to indemnify under the coverage purchased, a party is not liable to another…

Volis v. 801 Seventh Avenue, Inc.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the claims for contractual and common-law indemnification asserted by…