Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
McGlynn v. Brooklyn Hospital-Caledonian Hospital
Citations: 209 A.D.2d 486; 619 N.Y.S.2d 54; 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11247
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; November 13, 1994; New York; State Appellate Court
In a personal injury case, the defendant third-party plaintiff, Peco, Inc., appeals a December 23, 1992 order from the Supreme Court of Nassau County. The order denied Peco's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint against it and for common-law indemnification from third-party defendant PRP Mechanical, Inc. Additionally, the order granted summary judgment to defendants Brooklyn Hospital-Caledonian Hospital and Barr. Barr, Inc. regarding contractual indemnity. Key points include: 1. The appellate court modified the order by removing the provision that granted summary judgment against Peco on the issue of contractual indemnity from Brooklyn Hospital-Caledonian Hospital, while affirming the order in all other respects. 2. Peco's argument that it was not an "agent" under the Labor Law was rejected. Since the work leading to the plaintiff's injuries was specifically assigned to Peco, it qualified as an agent of the construction manager/general contractor. 3. Under the Labor Law, an entity that becomes an agent cannot avoid liability by delegating work to another entity. 4. Peco's claim that Barr could not enforce its right to contractual indemnity was also dismissed, as there was no evidence of Barr's active negligence. 5. The court found merit in Peco's argument that Brooklyn Hospital-Caledonian Hospital was not entitled to summary judgment for contractual indemnification due to potential questions of fact regarding the Hospital's negligence in supplying the equipment that caused the injuries. 6. Regarding common-law indemnification, the court determined that it was unclear whether PRP Mechanical's actions contributed to the accident, thus denying Peco's summary judgment on that issue. The court's decision was made with a consensus among the justices.