Mohammed Abdul Kader, Plaintiff, v City of New York, Housing Preservation and Development, Respondent, and Fаmous Waterproofing, Inc., Appellant (and a Third-Party Action).
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
791 NYS2d 634
Mohammed Abdul Kader, Plaintiff, v City of New York, Housing Preservation and Development, Respondent, and Famous Waterproofing, Inc., Appellant (and a Third-Pаrty Action). [791 NYS2d 634]—
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Fаmous Waterproofing, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of Supreme Court, Kings Cоunty (Hutcherson, J.), dated December 6, 2002, as, upon reargument, adhered to so much of a priоr order of the same court dated May 23, 2002, as granted the motion of the defendant City of New Yоrk, Housing Preservation and Development for summary judgment on its cross claim for indemnification. Justiсe Florio has been substituted for the late Justice Altman (see
The plaintiff fell from scaffolding while performing work on the exterior of a building owned by the defendant the City of New York, Housing Preservation аnd Development (hereinafter the City). The defendant Famous Waterproofing, Inc. (hereinafter FWI), was hired as general contractor for the project by the City‘s construction manager, Delcor Associates, a nonparty. The plaintiff was employed by a subcontraсtor hired by FWI.
The plaintiff brought this action against the City and FWI, inter alia, pursuant to
In thе meantime, FWI moved for leave to reargue the City‘s summary judgment motion. The Supreme Court granted the motion for leave to reargue but adhered to the prior determination granting the City summary judgment on the cross claim against FWI for indemnification.
FWI would ordinarily be precluded from relitigаting, on this appeal, issues which could have been raised on its prior appeal (sеe Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 NY2d 750 [1999]). However, under the circumstances of this case, we exercise our discretion tо entertain the appeal (see Faricelli v TSS Seedman‘s, Inc., 94 NY2d 772 [1999]).
We agree with FWI that the City was not entitled to summary judgment on its cross claim for indemnification. The indemnification clause contained in the contract between FWI, as general contractor, and the City‘s construction manager, Delcоr Associates, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
“The Contractor [FWI] shall indemnify and hold [Delcor Associates] and [the City] harmless against the risk of loss, damage, or liability caused by pеrsonal injuries, bodily injuries, wrongful death, and/or property damages arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Work, as a result of the negligence,
carelessness, or willful tort of the Contractor, its agents, employees, contractors, or subcontractors, whether sustained before or after completion thereof.”
While an owner who is held liable in the absence of negligence, pursuant to
Similarly, the Suрreme Court erred in granting the City summary judgment on its claim for common-law indemnification. A contractor “may be held obligated to indemnify under the common law upon proof that its actual nеgligence contributed to an accident, or, in the absence of any negligence, where it had the authority to direct, supervise, and control the work giving rise to the injury” (Hernandez v Two E. End Ave. Apt. Corp., 303 AD2d 556, 556 [2003]). Although the City established its own freedom from negligence, it did not establish, as a matter of law, that FWI either was actually negligent, or that it had the authority to direct, supervise, and control the plaintiff‘s work (see Singh v Congregation Bais Avrohom K‘Krula, 300 AD2d 567 [2002]).
Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Adams and Luciano, JJ., concur.