law right to indemnification arises only where a party’s liability is based upon the wrongdoing of the party from whom indemnification is sought. Mallouris, 2003 WL 22966287, at * 2; see also Guzman v. Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 69 N.Y.2d 559, 567-568, 516 N.Y.S.2d 451, 509 N.E.2d 51 (1987). However, where a party has “itself participated to some degree in the wrongdoing [it] cannot receive the benefit of the [common law indemnity] doctrine;” but rather it may only receive contribution. Durabla Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 992 F.Supp. 657, 660 (S.D.N.Y.1998)(citing Trustees of Columbia Univ. v: Mitchell/Giurgola Assocs., 109 A.D.2d 449, 492 N.Y.S.2d 371, 375 [1st Dept.1985]); see also Ins. Co. of North America v. Historic Cohoes II, 879 F.Supp. 222, 228 (N.D.N.Y.1995)(<HOLDING>). If CVS ProCare is found to be liable to
holding that indemnification provision did not expressly state the party was seeking indemnity for its own negligence so as to satisfy express negligence test recognizing common law right to indemnity when a partys liability is vicarious holding that there can be no common liability upon which to base a contribution claim between a third party and an injured partys employer because the exclusive remedy provision means that the employers liability is not based on negligence so that application of the common liability rule deprives a third party of the opportunity to secure contribution from the injured partys employer holding that indemnification  without regard to  the negligence of any party clearly and unequivocally provided bay drilling with indemnification for its own negligence holding that if the party seeking indemnity is held liable in part because of its own negligence common law indemnification is unavailable and the only remedy is contribution