Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Chun v. Ecco III Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 18, 2000

268 A.D.2d 454; 701 N.Y.S.2d 910; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 547

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Fritz v. Sports Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
McAllister v. Construction Consultants L.I., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Erickson v. Cross Ready Mix, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
George v. Marshalls of MA, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
FedEx Ground Package Sys. v. Transcontinental Ins. Co. (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2004)
Pirrotta v. EklecCo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Trataros Constr., Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Barnes v. DeFoe/Halmar (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated October 2, 1998, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment against the third-party defendant, Agam Constructors, Inc., on its causes of action for contractual indemnification and to recover damages for breach of contract.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant claims that it is entitled to summary judgment on its contractual indemnity claim. We disagree. The determination as to the applicability of the indemnification clause in the subject subcontract cannot be made until there is a finding and apportionment of liability between the appellant, the general contractor, and the third-party defendant, the subcontractor (see, Haddock v Fordham Commercial Redevelopment Corp., 247 AD2d 327). Since there has been no finding made with respect to the parties’ respective fault, if any, for the *455underlying injury, any award of summary judgment at this juncture would be premature (see, Maxwell v Toys “R” Us, 258 AD2d 630).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.