Legal Opinion
Sikorski v. Springbrook Fire District
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 8, 1996PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The court properly determined that Springbrook and Wailand are entitled to a conditional judgment against Sahlem Roofing and Siding, Inc. (Sahlem) for common-law indemnification. A vicariously liable party may obtain common-law indemnification from a contractor where the party did not control, direct, or supervise the injury-producing work and the contractor controlled and directed the performance of the plaintiff’s work (see, Stimson v Lapp Insulator Co., 186 AD2d 1052). There is no proof that Springbrook or Wailand controlled or supervised the roofing work performed by Sahlem. Additionally,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gillmore v. DanielAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Stimson v. Lapp Insulator Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
3Cited by11 opinions
- Frank v. Meadowlakes Development Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Clark v. 345 East 52nd St. Owners, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Olney v. Ciminelli-Cowper Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Newell v. Almeter-Barry Construction Management, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Lopez v. DaganAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.