You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Rockefeller University v. Tishman Construction Corp.

Citations: 246 A.D.2d 339; 666 N.Y.S.2d 911; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 35

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; January 7, 1998; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court of New York County, presided by Justice Herman Cahn, issued an order on October 30, 1996, affirming the denial of summary judgment for third-party defendants, subcontractors Rosen, Morelli Masons, a Joint Venture, Royal Mason Associates, Inc., and Morelli Masons, Inc. The motion sought to dismiss the general contractor Tishman's claim for implied indemnification. The court found that the contract between Tishman and the plaintiff, Rockefeller University, which mandates Tishman to supervise and direct the work, does not preclude Tishman's claims against the subcontractors, a position previously upheld in related appeals. Rosen's evidence indicating Tishman's actual supervision was deemed insufficient to conclusively demonstrate that Tishman acted solely as Rosen's on-site supervisor rather than as an occasional advisor. The ruling was unanimous, with costs awarded to Tishman.

Legal Issues Addressed

Contractual Obligations and Implied Indemnification

Application: The contractual obligation of Tishman to supervise and direct the work does not negate its claim for implied indemnification against the subcontractors.

Reasoning: The court found that the contract between Tishman and the plaintiff, Rockefeller University, which mandates Tishman to supervise and direct the work, does not preclude Tishman's claims against the subcontractors, a position previously upheld in related appeals.

Evaluation of Evidence in Supervisory Role

Application: The evidence presented by Rosen was insufficient to establish that Tishman acted solely as the subcontractor's on-site supervisor.

Reasoning: Rosen's evidence indicating Tishman's actual supervision was deemed insufficient to conclusively demonstrate that Tishman acted solely as Rosen's on-site supervisor rather than as an occasional advisor.

Summary Judgment Denial in Implied Indemnification Claims

Application: The court denied summary judgment for the third-party defendants, allowing the general contractor's claim for implied indemnification to proceed.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court of New York County, presided by Justice Herman Cahn, issued an order on October 30, 1996, affirming the denial of summary judgment for third-party defendants, subcontractors Rosen, Morelli Masons, a Joint Venture, Royal Mason Associates, Inc., and Morelli Masons, Inc.