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

1,421 chars

In Gross (supra), a “Responsibility Release” was signed by the plaintiff that ostensibly relieved the defendant parachuting center of all liability for any possible injuries. The release was silent, however, on the matter of any negligence on the defendant’s part. The court interpreted this as merely excusing the parachute center from responsibility for injuries that ordinarily and inevitably would occur without fault on the part of the center, and the release would not be taken as excusing a defendant from consequences of his own negligence. Irmas’s alteration agreement contained language similar to the release in Gross. Though such clauses may seem to indemnify a party against even its own negligence, the language must evince an “unmistakable intent of the parties” to do so (Kurek v Port Chester Hous. Auth., 18 NY2d 450, 456 [1966]). The alteration agreement did not specifically indemnify the Blank Trust against its own negligence and therefore we decline to interpret it in that manner. While it was not the Blank Trust’s fault that the leak occurred, the Trust was under a duty to fix any condition posing a safety risk to its tenant. Once the water entered unit 8E and mold began to grow, it became the responsibility of the Blank Trust to remedy the situation. Therefore, the Blank Trust’s claim for contractual indemnification fails. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

Other Sections in This Document (22)

Full Text