Second Department Holds That Condo "Alteration Agreement" Is Not Subject to GOL

In Guryev v. Tomchinsky, the condominium defendants sought indemnification from the owner of an individual condominium unit pursuant to an "Alteration Agreement" that was entered into between the parties for renovation work in the unit.  The Second Department found that the indemnification provision was triggered based upon the allegations of a worker who was injured while performing the subject renovation work, and that the condominium defendants had demonstrated that they were free from negligence.  The Court held that the indemnification provision, even if broadly worded, was nevertheless enforceable because: (1) General Obligations Law 5-322.1, which applies to agreements collateral to a lease, was inapplicable to the condominium unit; (2) the clause did not require the unit owner to indemnify the defendants for their own negligence and (3) since the condominium defendants demonstrated that they were free from fault, the agreement, "as applied, does not run afoul of the proscriptions of General Obligations Law 5-322.1."

We previously blogged about certain issues in the Guryev case after an earlier Court of Appeals' decision and when the Court of Appeals granted leave in the matter.