Collins v. Switzer Construction Group, Inc.
Opinion of the Court
Switzer’s claim of prejudice resulting from Time’s and 135 West 50th Owner’s amendment of their answer to assert cross claims for contractual indemnification against it is belied by the fact that Time and 135 West 50th Owner demanded, on two separate occasions, a defense and indemnification under the parties’ agreement. Moreover, Switzer cannot reasonably claim to be surprised by its own contractual obligations. As neither Time nor 135 West 50th Owner was negligent in connection with plaintiffs accident, the indemnification and defense clauses in their agreement are not unenforceable and void under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 (see Brooks v Judlau Contr., Inc., 11 NY3d 204 [2008]). We have considered Switzer’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, McGuire and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.