Miele v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miele v. City of New York

270 A.D. 122, 58 N.Y.S.2d 407

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 16, 1945·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There can be no recovery over other than contribution. as between joint tort-feasors, unless there is liability over by virtue of contract or by status (Fox v. Western New York Motor Lines, Inc., 257 N. Y. 305, 307; Rhynders v. Greene, 255 App. Div. 401, 403).

[124] The cross complaint here shows upon its face that there is no basis for a claim of indemnity against the impleaded defendant. Defendant-respondent is an active tort-feasor and no recovery over can be had from another wrongdoer (Employers’ Liability A. Corp. v. Post & McCord, 286 N. Y. 254, 265). Nor can the language of the permit, or the provisions of the Administrative Code of the City of New York (§ 82d-4.0), relied upon by respondent, be construed as a contract to indemnify respondent against its own negligence (Thompson-Starrett Co. v. Otis Elevator Co., 271 N. Y. 36, 41).

The order should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted.

Martin, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Wasservogel, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted.

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

Per Curiam.

There can be no recovery over other than contribution. as between joint tort-feasors, unless there is liability over by virtue of contract or by status (Fox v. Western New York Motor Lines, Inc., 257 N. Y. 305, 307; Rhynders v. Greene, 255 App. Div. 401, 403).

[124] The cross complaint here shows upon its face that there is no basis for a claim of indemnity against the impleaded defendant. Defendant-respondent is an active tort-feasor and no recovery over can be had from another wrongdoer (Employers’ Liability A. Corp. v. Post & McCord, 286 N. Y. 254, 265). Nor can the language of the permit, or the provisions of the Administrative Code of the City of New York (§ 82d-4.0), relied upon by respondent, be construed as a contract to indemnify respondent against its own negligence (Thompson-Starrett Co. v. Otis Elevator Co., 271 N. Y. 36, 41).

The order should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted.

Martin, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Wasservogel, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted.

Miele v. City of New York, 270 A.D. 122, 58 N.Y.S.2d 407 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

270 A.D. 122 (Miele v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related