Kelly v. New York Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kelly v. New York Telephone Co.

100 A.D.2d 537, 473 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17509

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 100 A.D.2d 537 (Kelly v. New York Telephone Co.) 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

Kelly v. New York Telephone Co., 100 A.D.2d 537, 473 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17509 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered September 9, 1983, which denied his motion to sever the third-party action and to dismiss the third-party complaint. H Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted, third-party action severed and third-party complaint dismissed. H Respondent has no cause of action against appellant. Plaintiff in the main action has released appellant in exchange for substantial consideration. Therefore, as a settling tort-feasor with no potential liability for contribution, appellant is entitled to dismissal of the third-party complaint (see General Obligations Law, § 15-108, subd [b]; see, also, Lettiere v Martin Elevator Co., 62 AD2d 810, affd 48 NY2d 662; Mitchell v New York Hosp., 93 AD2d 832, mod on other grounds 61 NY2d 208; Mielcarek v Knights, 50 AD2d 122). Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Boyers and Fiber, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered September 9, 1983, which denied his motion to sever the third-party action and to dismiss the third-party complaint. H Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted, third-party action severed and third-party complaint dismissed. H Respondent has no cause of action against appellant. Plaintiff in the main action has released appellant in exchange for substantial consideration. Therefore, as a settling tort-feasor with no potential liability for contribution, appellant is entitled to dismissal of the third-party complaint (see General Obligations Law, § 15-108, subd [b]; see, also, Lettiere v Martin Elevator Co., 62 AD2d 810, affd 48 NY2d 662; Mitchell v New York Hosp., 93 AD2d 832, mod on other grounds 61 NY2d 208; Mielcarek v Knights, 50 AD2d 122). Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Boyers and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.2d 537, 473 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-new-york-telephone-co-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack