Warboys v. SHI-III Briarcliff Reit, LLC
- Paul Davison
- 7:19-cv-02491
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Warboys v. SHI-III Briarcliff Reit: Judge Davison denied Andron Construction’s untimely request to reconsider the court’s indemnification ruling.
Andron Construction Corp., SHI-I Briarcliff Reit, LLC, and Briarcliff Manor Investors, LLC were affected by the denial of leave to seek reconsideration. The ruling also maintained the court’s determination that Andron’s indemnification agreement with American Panel Tech/NY LLC was void under New York General Obligations Law § 5-322.1.
What happened
In Warboys v. SHI-III Briarcliff Reit, Andron Construction asked for permission to seek reconsideration of the court’s May 19, 2021 ruling on the parties’ summary-judgment motions. The request was also made on behalf of SHI-I Briarcliff Reit and Briarcliff Manor Investors.
The court said the request was filed 155 days after the May 19 ruling, even though the applicable local rule generally requires reconsideration requests within 14 days. The court also said that, even if it considered the request, it would reject it because the indemnification agreement required American Panel Tech/NY LLC to cover claims that could include Andron’s own negligence, making the agreement void under New York law.
Judge Davison denied leave to move for reconsideration and stated that the court continued to adhere to its earlier ruling that the indemnification agreement was void.
The detailed version
- Warboys v. SHI-III Briarcliff Reit, LLC · No. 7:19-cv-02491
- Paul Davison
- Nov. 8, 2021
Background
Andron Construction Corp. asked for permission under Local Civil Rule 6.3 to seek reconsideration of the court’s May 19, 2021 order resolving the parties’ motions for summary judgment. The request was made on behalf of Andron, SHI-I Briarcliff Reit, LLC, and Briarcliff Manor Investors, LLC.
The earlier order held that Andron’s indemnification agreement with former third-party defendant American Panel Tech/NY LLC was void in its entirety under New York General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. The court had concluded that the agreement could require American Panel to indemnify Andron for Andron’s own negligence, and that the phrase “to the fullest extent of law” did not adequately preserve the lawful portion of the agreement.
Reasons for Denial
The court first denied leave because the request was untimely. Andron filed it on October 21, 2021—155 days after the May 19 order. Local Civil Rule 6.3 directs parties to seek reconsideration within 14 days after the court’s determination of the original motion. The court also noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) requires a motion to alter or amend a judgment to be filed within 28 days after entry of the judgment.
The court added that it would deny reconsideration even if it reached the merits. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally reserved for situations in which the moving party identifies controlling decisions or information that the court overlooked and that could reasonably change the result.
Andron argued that the indemnification agreement should not have been held entirely void. The court rejected that argument. It explained that the agreement covered claims involving American Panel’s acts and omissions, but also covered claims arising from or connected with American Panel’s work or operations. The court determined that this latter language extended beyond American Panel’s conduct and could reach Andron’s own negligence, violating Section 5-322.1. The court also noted that Andron had advocated this broad interpretation of the provision.
Disposition
Judge Paul E. Davison denied leave to move for reconsideration. The court stated that, notwithstanding the untimely request, it adhered to its view that the indemnification agreement with American Panel Tech was void under Section 5-322.1.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.