Lease negligence exemption void: N.Y. GOL §5-321

Every covenant in, in connection with or collateral to a lease that exempts the lessor from liability for injuries to person or property caused by its own negligence in the operation or maintenance of the premises is void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable. The clause therefore drops out of the conversation, and what is left is the question the section does not answer: whether the landlord was negligent at all.

The landlord agrees to meet the medical costs and to fit stairwell lighting that reports its own failure, and the tenant agrees the matter is closed once the work has been signed off.

The words "in or in connection with or collateral to" any lease are there so the clause cannot be moved into a side letter or a rider and survive, so the separate signing date changes nothing. What does decide it is whose negligence is in question: the section reaches the landlord's own negligence in operating or maintaining the building, not the acts of a stranger or of a contractor who is nobody's servant.

They agree a figure for the belongings, using receipts where they exist and a flat sum where they do not, and the landlord confirms in writing that the rider will not be raised against any future claim.

The section voids exemption from the landlord's own negligence and says nothing about a tenant being required to insure - an insurance obligation is not an exemption from liability. So the two clauses are not in the same position at all, and which of them is being relied on decides the argument.

The tenant agrees to keep the contents cover in place and the landlord agrees to strike the exemption paragraph at the next renewal rather than leave an unenforceable term sitting in the document.

Whether the indemnification clause in the agreement between the school defendants and the Generals was void under General Obligations Law § 5-321.

The court held that General Obligations Law § 5-321 is inapplicable because the agreement is a license, not a lease, and therefore the indemnification clause is not void under that statute.

The agreement constitutes a license and not a lease, and, therefore, General Obligations Law § 5-321 is inapplicable (see Karp v Federated Dept. Stores, 301 AD2d 574, 575 [2003]).

Whether the indemnification provision in a commercial lease between sophisticated parties is rendered unenforceable by General Obligations Law § 5-321, which voids agreements exempting lessors from liability for negligence.

General Obligations Law § 5-321 does not preclude enforcement of an indemnification provision in a commercial lease negotiated at arm's length between two sophisticated parties when coupled with an insurance procurement requirement, even if it indemnifies the lessor for its own negligence.

Although General Obligations Law § 5-321 provides that an agreement that purports to exempt a lessor from its own negligence is void and unenforceable, the subject indemnification provision is not rendered unenforceable by this statute.

Whether broad indemnification provisions in a proprietary lease and alteration agreement that are not limited to the lessee's acts or omissions and fail to make exceptions for the lessor's own negligence are enforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-321 where the agreements were not negotiated at arm's length by two sophisticated business entities.

The court held that such broad indemnification provisions are unenforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-321 where the agreements were not negotiated at arm's length by two sophisticated business entities.

Broad indemnification provisions such as those in the proprietary lease and in the alteration agreement here, which are not limited to the lessee’s acts or omissions, and which fail to make exceptions for the lessor’s own negligence, are unenforceable pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-321 where the proprietary lease and the alteration agreement were not negotiated at arm’s length by two sophisticated business entities (see Hadzihasanovic v 155 E. 72nd St. Corp., 70 AD3d 637, 638-639 [2010]; DeSabato v 674 Carroll St. Corp., 55 AD3d 656, 657-659 [2008]; cf. Great N. Ins. Co. v Interior Constr. Corp., 7 NY3d 412 [2006]).

Whether an indemnification provision in a commercial lease is rendered unenforceable by General Obligations Law § 5-321.

The court held that General Obligations Law § 5-321 does not preclude enforcement of an indemnification provision in a commercial lease negotiated at arm's length between two sophisticated parties when coupled with an insurance procurement requirement.

Contrary to the contention of Elias Taverna, the indemnification provision in the lease agreement is not rendered unenforceable by General Obligations Law § 5-321, which provides that an agreement that purports to exempt a lessor from its own negligence is void and unenforceable.

Does General Obligations Law § 5-321 render an indemnification provision unenforceable when the indemnitee's liability is purely vicarious and not based on actual negligence?

The indemnification provision is enforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-321 because there is no evidence that CPS was actually negligent; its liability is purely vicarious.

Thus, because CPS’s liability is purely vicarious under Labor Law § 240 (1), and potentially section 241 (6), enforcement of the indemnification provision does not run afoul of General Obligations Law § 5-321 (see Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 786, 795 n 5 [1997]; Correa v 100 W. 32nd St. Realty Corp., 290 AD2d 306, 306 [2002]).

Whether General Obligations Law § 5-321 rendered the indemnification provisions in Leases 1 and 2 unenforceable as agreements exempting the lessor from liability for its own negligence.

The indemnification provisions in Leases 1 and 2 were not rendered unenforceable by General Obligations Law § 5-321 because the liability was to third parties, the leases were commercial agreements negotiated at arm's length between sophisticated parties, and the provisions were coupled with insurance procurement requirements.

Contrary to Palisades’s contention, the indemnification provisions in Leases 1 and 2 were not rendered unenforceable by General Obligations Law § 5-321, which provides that an agreement which purports to exempt a lessor from its own negligence is void and unenforceable.