Admiral Indemnity Co. v. Popular Plumbing & Heating Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Admiral Indemnity Co. v. Popular Plumbing & Heating Corp.

127 A.D.3d 419, 7 N.Y.S.3d 78

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 2, 2015

Docket14715N 150207/13 590167/14

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 419 (Admiral Indemnity Co. v. Popular Plumbing & Heating Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Admiral Indemnity Co. v. Popular Plumbing & Heating Corp., 127 A.D.3d 419, 7 N.Y.S.3d 78 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered August 20, 2014, which granted third-party defendant Yeung’s Contracting LLC’s (Yeung’s) motion to sever the third-party action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action for property damage allegedly caused by a malfunction in a sprinkler system that was being repaired and/or renovated by defendant/third-party plaintiff Popular Plumbing & Heating Corp. (Popular), severance of the third-party action for contribution and indemnification was a proper exercise of discretion. Popular impleaded third-party defendant Yeung’s more than one month after the note of issue was filed in the main action and provided no reasonable justification for its delay. Popular, which was hired by Yeung’s to relocate some of the sprinkler heads, had a direct contractual relationship with Yeung’s and was therefore aware of its identity and its role in the sprinkler replacement project from the outset. While the main action is trial-ready, there is outstanding discovery in the third-party action, including depositions and documentary discovery. If the actions are not severed, Yeung’s will be prejudiced since it will be precluded from conducting meaningful discovery or from making dispositive motions (see Torres v Visto Realty Corp., 106 AD3d 645 [1st Dept 2013]). Further, although the main action and the third-party action are based on the same nucleus of facts, they involve disparate issues of law. Contrary to Popular’s argument, there is no possibility of inconsistent verdicts since Yeung’s liability for common-law indemnification and contribution in the third-party action is contingent upon a finding that Popular is liable in the main action (see id.).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered August 20, 2014, which granted third-party defendant Yeung’s Contracting LLC’s (Yeung’s) motion to sever the third-party action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action for property damage allegedly caused by a malfunction in a sprinkler system that was being repaired and/or renovated by defendant/third-party plaintiff Popular Plumbing & Heating Corp. (Popular), severance of the third-party action for contribution and indemnification was a proper exercise of discretion. Popular impleaded third-party defendant Yeung’s more than one month after the note of issue was filed in the main action and provided no reasonable justification for its delay. Popular, which was hired by Yeung’s to relocate some of the sprinkler heads, had a direct contractual relationship with Yeung’s and was therefore aware of its identity and its role in the sprinkler replacement project from the outset. While the main action is trial-ready, there is outstanding discovery in the third-party action, including depositions and documentary discovery. If the actions are not severed, Yeung’s will be prejudiced since it will be precluded from conducting meaningful discovery or from making dispositive motions (see Torres v Visto Realty Corp., 106 AD3d 645 [1st Dept 2013]). Further, although the main action and the third-party action are based on the same nucleus of facts, they involve disparate issues of law. Contrary to Popular’s argument, there is no possibility of inconsistent verdicts since Yeung’s liability for common-law indemnification and contribution in the third-party action is contingent upon a finding that Popular is liable in the main action (see id.).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 419, 7 N.Y.S.3d 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/admiral-indemnity-co-v-popular-plumbing-heating-corp-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack