From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nappo v. Menorah Campus, Incorporated

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 9, 1995
216 A.D.2d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 9, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court improperly granted summary judgment to defendant and third-party plaintiff Amthor Steel, Inc. (Amthor), against plaintiff's decedent's employer, third-party defendant W.E. Darin Construction Enterprises, Inc. (Darin) based upon contractual indemnification. Amthor failed to establish by proof in evidentiary form that the parties agreed (orally or otherwise) to an indemnification provision in their contract. Amthor cannot rely on its purchase order to establish that provision without proof that the purchase order accurately reflects a verbal agreement of October 30, 1991 that is mentioned therein.

The court properly granted summary judgment to defendant and third-party plaintiff Menorah Campus, Incorporated, based upon common-law indemnification. A property owner who is only vicariously liable under the Labor Law is entitled to common-law indemnification from the party that actually supervised, directed or controlled the work giving rise to the injury sustained by plaintiff's decedent (see, Chapel v. Mitchell, 84 N.Y.2d 345, 347).


Summaries of

Nappo v. Menorah Campus, Incorporated

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 9, 1995
216 A.D.2d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Nappo v. Menorah Campus, Incorporated

Case Details

Full title:ANGELO J. NAPPO, SR., as Administrator of the Estate of ANGELO NAPPO, JR.…

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

Date published: Jun 9, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
628 N.Y.S.2d 907

Citing Cases

Shaheen v. Hueber-Breuer Const. Co., Inc.

Therefore, we further modify the order by denying those parts of the motions of Hueber-Breuer and RPMI…

In re Savigny

"The mere failure by plaintiff to follow safety instructions does not render plaintiff a recalcitrant worker"…