Quain v. Buzzetta Construction Corp., 69 N.Y.2d 379 (1987)

When a party seeking leave to appeal specifically limits the issues it seeks to have reviewed in its application, it is bound by that limitation and cannot raise additional issues on appeal.

Summary

In this case concerning injuries sustained at a construction site, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether an appellant could raise issues beyond those specified in its application for leave to appeal. The Court held that Buzzetta Construction Corp. was bound by the limited issue presented in its leave application, which concerned the validity of an indemnification clause under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. Because Buzzetta’s leave application focused solely on indemnification, it could not subsequently challenge its liability to the plaintiffs. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s order regarding indemnification and reinstated the original apportionment of damages between the defendants.

Facts

Plaintiff Rose Quain was injured after falling into a hole at an unfinished New York City sewer project managed by Buzzetta Construction Corp. as the general contractor. Quain and her spouse sued both Buzzetta and the City. The jury found Buzzetta 75% responsible and the City 25% responsible for the injuries. The contract between the City and Buzzetta contained an indemnification clause.

Procedural History

The trial court awarded damages to the plaintiffs and granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on its cross-claim against Buzzetta, requiring Buzzetta to fully indemnify the City. The Appellate Division affirmed the liability and claim over but directed a new trial on damages unless plaintiffs stipulated to a reduced award, which they did. Buzzetta then sought leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, specifically limiting its appeal to the issue of the indemnification clause’s validity under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. Buzzetta then attempted to raise the issue of its liability to the plaintiffs in its jurisdictional statement and brief. The plaintiffs moved to strike the portions of Buzzetta’s filings that went beyond the scope of the leave application. The Court of Appeals initially denied the motion without prejudice, and then considered it on appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Buzzetta could raise the issue of its liability to the plaintiffs on appeal, given that its application for leave to appeal was expressly limited to the issue of indemnification under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1.
2. Whether the indemnification clause in the contract between Buzzetta and the City was enforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1.

Holding

1. No, because Buzzetta specifically limited the issues in its application for leave to appeal, it was bound by that limitation and could not raise additional issues on appeal.
2. No, because General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 prohibits enforcement of the indemnification clause under the facts of this case.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that granting leave to appeal generally allows parties to address all reviewable issues. However, when a party expressly limits the issues in its leave application, it is bound by that limitation. To allow otherwise would prejudice the opposing party, who might have sought to join issue or cross-move for leave to appeal on additional issues had they been properly notified. The Court stated, “Ordinarily when the court grants a motion for leave to appeal all issues of which the court may take cognizance may be addressed by the parties. Where, however, the party seeking leave specifically limits the issues to be raised, it is bound thereby and may not thereafter raise other questions.”

Regarding the indemnification clause, the Court agreed with Buzzetta’s argument (conceded by the City) that General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 prohibited the enforcement of the clause because it would require Buzzetta to indemnify the City for the City’s own negligence. The Court noted that the City’s alternative argument based on breach of contract was not properly raised in the pleadings or motions before the trial court.

Therefore, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motions to strike the portions of Buzzetta’s filings addressing liability to the plaintiffs, reversed the Appellate Division’s order insofar as it pertained to indemnification, and reinstated the original apportionment of damages between the defendants.