Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the third-party defendant, Gessin Electrical Contractors, Inc., appealed a Supreme Court decision and order regarding a third-party complaint for indemnification and contribution. The appeal from the decision was dismissed as non-appealable, while the order was reversed. The case originated from an injury sustained by an electrician employed by Gessin on a construction site, prompting the defendants, including Bovis Lend Lease, to seek contribution and indemnification from Gessin, as well as claim a breach of contract for not procuring insurance. The court concluded that an employer could only be liable for indemnification or contribution if the employee suffered a 'grave injury' or if there was a pre-accident written agreement, neither of which applied here. The court found that the indemnification and insurance provisions from the prime agreement were not incorporated into Gessin's subcontract. Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in denying Gessin's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party claims, leading to a reversal. Gessin was awarded costs, and the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment on indemnification was denied, with the court finding no merit in Gessin's other contentions. The judgment was concurred by Judges Skelos, Dickerson, Eng, and Sgroi.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appealability of Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal from the Supreme Court decision was dismissed as non-appealable.
Reasoning: The appeal from the decision is dismissed as non-appealable, while the order is reversed.
Contractual Indemnification and Incorporation Clausessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Gessin was not bound by the indemnification and insurance procurement provisions in the prime agreement as they were not incorporated into its subcontract.
Reasoning: The indemnification and insurance procurement provisions from the prime agreement were not incorporated into Gessin's subcontract with BTG.
Indemnification and Contribution under Workers' Compensation Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: An employer can only be liable for indemnification or contribution if the employee has suffered a 'grave injury' or if there is a pre-accident written agreement for indemnification.
Reasoning: The court determines that an employer can only be liable for indemnification or contribution if the employee has suffered a 'grave injury' as defined by the Workers' Compensation Law or if there is a pre-accident written agreement for indemnification.
Summary Judgment in Indemnification Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants; Gessin's motion to dismiss the third-party claims should have been granted due to the absence of a written agreement.
Reasoning: Gessin, having demonstrated no such written agreement existed, should have had their motion for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party claims granted.