New York Court of Appeals, 1981

April v. SOVEREIGN CONSTR. CO., LTD.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided November 17, 1981 · Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer Concur

55 N.Y.2d 627; 430 N.E.2d 1305; 446 N.Y.S.2d 252; 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3218

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Alleva v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Alleva v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Alleva v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Alleva v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Alleva v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Alleva v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Catalano v. International Business Machines Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Ciffa v. Jewish Federation Housing Development Fund Co. (New York Supreme Court 1985)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The indemnity clause provided in part that third-party defendant Wachtel, Dukauer and Fein, Inc. (Wachtel), the subcontractor, would assume responsibility and liability for any and all injuries to any person, including the subcontractor’s employees, for any damages “caused by or resulting from or arising out of any act or omission in connection with this Subcontract or the prosecution of work hereunder”. Under the subcontract, Wachtel was responsible not only for plumbing installations but also for providing plumbing materials and unloading and distributing them at the worksite. It is undisputed that plaintiff was injured while distributing plumbing materials.

Because the plaintiff, an employee of the subcontractor, was injured in the prosecution of the work under the subcontract, the indemnity provision became controlling with respect to the responsibility and liability for the injury.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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