Crespo v. City of New York
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Pearson Capital Partners LLC v. James River Insurance (District Court, S.D. New York 2015)
- Burlington Insurance v. NYC Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- BP Air Conditioning Corp. v. One Beacon Insurance Group (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Greenidge v. Allstate Insurance (District Court, S.D. New York 2004)
- Reidy Contracting Group, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company (District Court, W.D. New York 2024)
- Stutterheim v. First Shot Productions (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Aspen Specialty Insurance Co. v. Ironshore Indemnity Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh v. Utica First Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Crespo v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County 2004)
- Gomez v. National Center for Disability Services, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
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
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul Victor, J.), entered on or about April 2, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the cross motion of third-party plaintiff TDX Construction Corporation (TDX) for summary judgment upon its claim for contractual indemnification against third-party defendant S&P Construction Management, Inc. (S&P), and order, same court (Stanley Green, J.), entered July 2, 2002, which, inter alia, denied that portion of TDX’s motion for summary judgment declaring that third-party defendant Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co. (Nationwide) is obligated to indemnify it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
This case arises out of plaintiff’s fall from a ladder that was placed on top of a scaffold. The motion court correctly found that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether construction manager TDX was negligent in failing to obviate the hazard alleged to have caused plaintiff’s harm and, thus, as to whether it is entitled to indemnification from S&P. A TDX superintendent testified that, one week before plaintiff’s accident, he told S&P (plaintiff’s employer) that the use of a ladder on top of a scaffold was unsafe. This directive respecting the precise hazard alleged to have caused plaintiff’s injury is indicative of more than general supervisory control by TDX and precludes,
The denial of that portion of TDX’s motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that Nationwide is obliged to indemnify it was also proper. The additional insured endorsement pursuant to which indemnification from Nationwide is sought states that the insurance “with respect to [TDX] applies only to the extent that [TDX] is held liable for [S&P’s] acts or omissions.” Inasmuch as it has not yet been determined whether plaintiff’s harm was caused by negligence by S&P, and it remains possible that the trier of fact will find that plaintiff’s harm was caused by negligence by TDX, it cannot now be determined whether TDX’s claim falls within the subject additional insured endorsement (see Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Med. Ctr. v County of Suffolk, 155 AD2d 404, 406 [1989]). Although TDX contends that it is entitled to indemnification because Nationwide did not issue a timely disclaimer, if a claim falls outside the scope of an insurance policy’s coverage portion, as TDX’s claim may, disclaimer pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420 (d) is unnecessary (see Matter of Worcester Ins. Co. v Bettenhauser, 95 NY2d 185, 188 [2000]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.