Caruso v. Inhilco, Inc.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated February 14, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict finding the defendant third-party plaintiff liable to the plaintiffs for a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6), granted the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff for indemnification against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the third-party complaint is dismissed.

The defendant third-party plaintiff, Inhilco, Inc. (hereinafter Inhilco), was not entitled to contractual indemnification for its own negligence (see Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 786 [1997]; Carriere v Whiting Turner Contr., 299 AD2d 509 [2002]). The broad indemnity clause of Inhilco’s contract with the third-party defendant, Triad Project Management, Inc. (hereinafter Triad), for any claims for bodily injury “that may arise from . . . operations under this Agreement” was illegal (see Stottlar v Ginsburg Dev. Corp. , 89 NY2d 786 [1997]; Carriere v Whiting Turner Contr., supra).

Moreover, Inhilco failed to meet its burden of establishing its entitlement to common-law indemnification (see Wagner v Skanska Const. Co., 289 AD2d 324 [2001]; Belcastro v Hewlett-Woodmere Union Free School Dist. No. 14, 286 AD2d 744 , 747 [2001]).