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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 12, 1984·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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.

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

100 A.D.2d 537 (Kelly v. New York Telephone Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related