McAllister v. Construction Consultants L.I., Inc.
N.Y. App. Div.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by5
- 2025Cianciulli v. Urban Found./Engg., LLC N.Y. App. Div.
- 2023Maldonado-Diaz v. JRM 250 Realty LLC N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty.
- 2018Fedrich v. Granite Bldg. 2, LLC N.Y. App. Div.
- 2015Mohan v. Atlantic Court, LLC N.Y. App. Div.
- 2011Dalvano v. Racanelli Construction Co. N.Y. App. Div.
Cites 4 cases
- Cava Construction Co. v. Gealtec Remodeling Corp.
- George v. Marshalls of MA, Inc.
- Erickson v. Cross Ready Mix, Inc.
- Chun v. Ecco III Enterprises, Inc.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Michael F. McAllister et al., Plaintiffs, v Construction Consultants L.I., Inc., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Defendant. C. Glasser Construction Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., and a related third-party action, the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated September 24, 2009, which granted the motion of the defendant/third-party plaintiff for conditional summary judgment on its third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant/third-party plaintiff for conditional summary judgment on its third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification is denied as premature.
“[A] party seeking contractual indemnification must prove itself free from negligence, because to the extent its negligence contributed to the accident, it cannot be indemnified therefor” (Cava Constr. Co., Inc. v Gealtec Remodeling Corp., 58 AD3d 660, 662 [2009], citing General Obligations Law § 5-322.1; see Reynolds v County of Westchester, 270 AD2d 473 [2000]). Here, the Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of the defendant/third-party plaintiff which was for conditional summary judgment on its third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification, as there are issues of fact as to whose negligence, if any, caused the plaintiffs accident (see Erickson v Cross Ready Mix, Inc., 75 AD3d 519, 524 [2010]; George v Marshalls of MA, Inc., 61 AD3d 925, 930 [2009]; Chun v Ecco III Enters., 268 AD2d 454, 454-455 [2000]). Under these circumstances, it was premature to reach the issue of contractual indemnification (see Erickson v Cross Ready Mix, Inc., 75 AD3d at 524; George v Marshalls of MA, Inc., 61 AD3d at 930; Chun v Ecco III Enters., 268 AD2d at 454-455).
The third-party defendant’s remaining contention is not properly before this Court. Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.