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.
Santamaria v. 1125 Park Avenue Corp.
Citations: 238 A.D.2d 259; 657 N.Y.S.2d 20; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4316
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; April 24, 1997; New York; State Appellate Court
The Supreme Court of Bronx County, under Justice Luis Gonzalez, reversed a previous order denying 1125 Park Avenue Corporation's cross-motion for summary judgment on its third-party complaint, granting the cross-motion and dismissing the complaint against 1125 Park. The case involved an employee of a masonry subcontractor who was injured while descending a ladder at a building owned by 1125 Park, which had contracted Tower Building Restoration, Inc. for brick replacement work. The contract required Tower to provide certificates of insurance naming 1125 Park as an additional insured with a minimum public liability coverage of $5 million and included a broad indemnification clause protecting 1125 Park from claims arising from Tower's work. Tower contested the cross-motion, claiming that 1125 Park was not named as an additional insured and had waived its right to indemnification by allowing work to proceed without the required insurance. The court found that Tower's assertion lacked corroborating evidence and contradicted the certificate of insurance provided to Tower, which listed 1125 Park as the certificate holder. Even if 1125 Park was not named as an additional insured, the indemnification agreement was enforceable, and indemnification was warranted since the plaintiff’s injury arose from Tower’s work, regardless of 1125 Park’s potential negligence. The court emphasized that failure to procure insurance as stipulated in the contract would obligate Tower to indemnify 1125 Park. Additionally, there was no evidence of waiver since 1125 Park did not knowingly relinquish its right to indemnification, as waiver requires intentional relinquishment of a known right. The ruling ultimately affirmed 1125 Park's entitlement to indemnification from Tower for the employee's injury.