Edwards v. Barbuti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edwards v. Barbuti

52 A.D.2d 835, 382 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12656

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

DecidedMay 3, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 835 (Edwards v. Barbuti) 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

Edwards v. Barbuti, 52 A.D.2d 835, 382 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for indemnification, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated May 8, 1975, which, treating defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as one for summary judgment, granted the motion. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. Since the settlement agreements were executed by plaintiffs prior to the effective date of the 1974 amendments to section 15-108 of the General Obligations Law (L 1974, ch 742, § 3, eff Sept. 1, 1974), the law to be applied is the law as it existed at the time of the settlement of the prior action (see Board of Educ. of Cent. School Dist. No. 1 v Homer, 80 Misc 2d 339). Under that law, a claim for a Dole apportionment against a joint tort-feasor survived a settlement with the injured party. Plaintiffs did not waive their right to a Dole apportionment by the settlement agreements [836]*836involved herein (see Tarantela v Williams, 48 AD2d 552). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Damiani, Rabin, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for indemnification, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated May 8, 1975, which, treating defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as one for summary judgment, granted the motion. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. Since the settlement agreements were executed by plaintiffs prior to the effective date of the 1974 amendments to section 15-108 of the General Obligations Law (L 1974, ch 742, § 3, eff Sept. 1, 1974), the law to be applied is the law as it existed at the time of the settlement of the prior action (see Board of Educ. of Cent. School Dist. No. 1 v Homer, 80 Misc 2d 339). Under that law, a claim for a Dole apportionment against a joint tort-feasor survived a settlement with the injured party. Plaintiffs did not waive their right to a Dole apportionment by the settlement agreements [836]*836involved herein (see Tarantela v Williams, 48 AD2d 552). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Damiani, Rabin, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 835, 382 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-barbuti-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack