June 19, 2008.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered on or about December 3, 2007, which granted plaintiffs' motion and third-party defendants' cross motion to sever the third-party claims from the main action, and denied third-party plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment on the claim for indemnification, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, summary judgment granted on the indemnification claim conditioned on a finding of liability against defendants/third-party plaintiffs, and the motion and cross motion to sever the third-party action denied.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman Dicker, LLP, New York (Patrick Lawless of counsel), for appellants.
Camacho Mauro Mulholland, LLP, New York (Eric L. Cooper of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Williams and Renwick, JJ.
Given that the parties are sophisticated commercial entities and that third-party defendants were obligated under the lease to procure insurance, the lease indemnification provision does not violate General Obligations Law § 5-321 ( see Great N Ins. Co. v Interior Constr. Corp., 7 NY3d 412, 419). There should have been a conditional grant of summary judgment on the indemnification claim ( see Rubin v Port Auth. of N.Y. N.J., 49 AD3d 422). In light of our decision, severance is unwarranted ( see Rothstein v Milleridge Inn, 251 AD2d 154), as there is no issue of further discovery.