Kagan v. Jacobs

260 A.D.2d 442, 687 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3837
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 12, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 442 (Kagan v. Jacobs) 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
Kagan v. Jacobs, 260 A.D.2d 442, 687 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the third-party defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated February 26, 1998, as denied that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint is granted, and the third-party complaint is dismissed.

The third-party defendant established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the third-party plaintiff failed to demonstrate a right to common-law indemnification from the appellant. The predicate for common-law indemnity is vicarious liability without fault on the part of the proposed indemnitee, and it follows that a party who has itself participated to some degree in the wrongdoing cannot receive the benefit of the doctrine (see, Henderson v Waldbaums, 149 AD2d 461; County of Westchester v Becket Assocs., 102 AD2d 34, affd 66 NY2d 642). Since the third-party plaintiff actually [443]*443participated to some degree in the alleged wrongdoing, he cannot claim indemnification. Furthermore, any claim by the third-party plaintiff for contribution from the appellant is barred by General Obligations Law § 15-108 (b) since the plaintiffs gave the appellant a general release. Thus, the appellant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Kingston Check Cashing Corp. v. Nussbaum Yates Berg Klein & Wolpow, LLP
218 A.D.3d 760 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
United States Fire Insurance v. Raia
121 A.D.3d 970 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Mack-Cali Realty v. Everfoam Insulation Systems, Inc.
110 A.D.3d 680 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Balkheimer v. Spanton
103 A.D.3d 603 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Ziviello v. O'Boyle
90 A.D.3d 916 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Miloscia v. B.R. Guest Holdings LLC
33 Misc. 3d 466 (New York Supreme Court, 2011)
Ferguson v. Shu Ham Lam
74 A.D.3d 870 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Ruiz v. Griffin
50 A.D.3d 1007 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Board of Managers v. Bay Club of Long Beach, Inc.
15 Misc. 3d 282 (New York Supreme Court, 2007)
Edenwald Contracting Co. v. Northern Insurance
289 A.D.2d 370 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Ramos v. RCP Associates
288 A.D.2d 454 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Cruz v. Kowal Industries, Inc.
267 A.D.2d 271 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Monti v. Harran Transportation Co.
266 A.D.2d 440 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Tulley v. Straus
265 A.D.2d 399 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
260 A.D.2d 442, 687 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kagan-v-jacobs-nyappdiv-1999.