- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
- Case
- Suazo v. 501 Madison-Sutton LLC
- Date
- June 2, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03411
Background
Plaintiff Marco Suazo, an employee of third third-party defendant Atlantic Interiors, Inc. (Atlantic), was injured on March 6, 2014, when he fell from a ladder at a construction site. The defendants included 501 Madison-Sutton LLC, 501 Madison Avenue LLC (the 501 Defendants), and GC Contractors, Inc., the general contractor. Second third-party defendant Superior Acoustics, Inc. (Superior) was Atlantic’s subcontractor. Superior had entered into a subcontract with Atlantic that included indemnification and insurance procurement provisions. The 501 Defendants and GC Contractors moved for summary judgment on their contractual and common-law indemnification claims against Superior. Atlantic moved for summary judgment dismissing Superior’s contractual indemnification claim against it. Superior cross-moved for summary judgment on its own contractual indemnification claim against Atlantic. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the 501 Defendants’ and GC Contractors’ motions and granted Atlantic’s motion while denying Superior’s. Superior appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division unanimously modified the order to deny the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on their common-law indemnification claim against Superior and to grant GC Contractors only conditional contractual indemnification against Superior, and otherwise affirmed. The Court held that common-law indemnification could not be resolved on summary judgment because factual issues remained regarding the relative negligence of the parties. However, GC Contractors was entitled to conditional contractual indemnification based on the indemnification provisions in Superior’s subcontract, subject to the condition that GC Contractors be found liable in the main action. The Court upheld the grant of Atlantic’s motion and the denial of Superior’s cross-motion regarding their competing contractual indemnification claims.
Takeaways
In multi-party construction accident litigation, contractual indemnification may be resolved conditionally on summary judgment, but common-law indemnification generally requires factual findings regarding the relative negligence of the parties that preclude summary resolution. The distinction between conditional and unconditional contractual indemnification depends on whether the indemnitee’s liability has already been established. Subcontractors should carefully review the indemnification and insurance procurement provisions in their subcontracts, as these provisions can expose them to significant liability even when their own negligence is not established.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates the complex web of indemnification claims that typically arise in construction accident litigation involving multiple tiers of contractors and subcontractors. The modification from unconditional to conditional contractual indemnification is significant because it preserves the possibility that Superior may not ultimately bear the indemnification burden if GC Contractors is not found liable in the main action. Contractors at all levels of the subcontracting chain should ensure that their indemnification obligations are clearly defined and that they maintain adequate insurance coverage to satisfy potential indemnification demands.