Dufur v. Lavin

65 N.Y. 830
New York Court of Appeals·Decided July 2, 1985·Published

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree with so much of the opinion of Presiding Justice A. Franklin Mahoney as found plaintiff Dufur was entitled to judgment against defendants Bowling Green Lanes, Inc., Lutz and Wilson (101 AD2d 319). The issue of apportionment between defendant Lavin and the remaining defendants is not before us on this appeal (see, 63 NY2d 894), but inasmuch as plaintiff Dufur’s right to recover has been affirmed, he may enter a separate judgment thereon, moving before Trial Term to sever the cross claims if he is so advised, and seek satisfaction of it from one or all of defendant joint tort-feasors (CPLR 1404; Kelly v Long Is. Light. Co, 31 NY2d 25, 30; see generally, 1 NY PJI2d, at 612 et seq.).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Dufur v. Lavin, 65 N.Y. 830 (N.Y. 1985).

65 N.Y. 830 (Dufur v. Lavin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kelly v. Long Island Lighting Co.
286 N.E.2d 241 (New York Court of Appeals, 1972)
Dufur v. Lavin
101 A.D.2d 319 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)