Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)

Citation: Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Parent Document: Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2006-01-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5836114/edge-management-consulting-inc-v-blank/ ↗

Full Text

1,110 chars

Common-law indemnification is predicated on “vicarious liability without actual fault,” which necessitates that “a party who has itself actually participated to some degree in the wrongdoing cannot receive the benefit of the doctrine” (Trump Vil. Section 3 v New York State Hous. Fin. Agency, 307 AD2d 891, 895 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 504 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 69 NY2d 559, 567 [1987]; Consolidated Rail Corp. v Hunts Point Term. Produce Coop. Assn., Inc., 11 AD3d 341, 342 [2004]). The Blank Trust was under a contractual as well as statutory duty to maintain unit 8E in good repair under Multiple Dwelling Law § 78 and New York City Administrative Code § 27-2005. These statutory duties are enforceable against an owner of a condominium unit (Kandell v Saunders, 224 AD2d 185, 186 [1996]). If the Blank Trust is found liable in the main action, it will be because it failed in these duties and consequently shares part of the blame. Therefore, it is barred from obtaining indemnification. Third-Party Defendant-Respondent-Appellant’s Appeal

Other Sections in This Document (22)

Full Text