Robles v Fordham Valentine Assoc. LLC

Holding The court modified the lower court’s order to grant summary judgment dismissing the cross-claim for contribution and common-law indemnification as abandoned, while affirming the denial of summary judgment on the contractual indemnification claim. The court found that factual issues remained regarding whether the plaintiff’s injury arose out of the carpentry work, potentially triggering the indemnification clause.

The court’s words

the broadly worded indemnification clause requiring Top Notch, as indemnitor, to indemnify and hold harmless third party-plaintiffs from any and all claims "arising out of, or resulting from, the Trade Work under the [carpentry] Trade Contract to the extent such Work was performed by, or contracted through, [Top Notch]" was potentially triggered in light of the facts indicating a possible nexus between the injury and the carpentry trade work's performance

2026 NY Slip Op 05867, at the official text

the claim would be barred for the same reasons Supreme Court found the owner defendants' third-party claims for contribution and common-law indemnification against Top Notch to be barred — namely, that plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits in connection with his claimed injuries, and the injuries did not meet the statutory definition of "grave injury" under the Workers' Compensation Law.

2026 NY Slip Op 05867, at the official text