Navallo v. American Standard, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Navallo v. American Standard, Inc.

224 A.D.2d 599, 639 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1425

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 599 (Navallo v. American Standard, Inc.) 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

Navallo v. American Standard, Inc., 224 A.D.2d 599, 639 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1425 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendants Ogden Services Corporation d/b/a Ogden Allied Services Corporation and Ogden Allied Eastern States Maintenance appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated October 20, 1994, which denied their motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of (1) the third-party complaint of American Standard, Inc., d/b/a New Jersey Trane Service, and (2) the first cause of action of the third-party complaint of Bell Communications Research, Inc. s/h/a Bell Communications, Inc.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the third-party complaint of American Standard, Inc., d/b/a New Jersey Trane Service and the first cause of action of the third-party complaint of Bell Communications Research, Inc., s/h/a Bell Communications, Inc., are dismissed.

Under New York’s choice of law rules, New Jersey law is applicable to bar the common-law contribution and implied indemnification claims interposed in the third-party actions by foreign domiciliaries against the injured plaintiff’s employer [600]*600Ogden Services Corporation d/b/a Ogden Allied Services Corporation and Ogden Allied Eastern States Maintenance (collectively referred to as Ogden) (see, e.g., Padula v Lilarn Props. Corp., 84 NY2d 519, 521; Cooney v Osgood Mach., 81 NY2d 66, 73-74; Schultz v Boy Scouts, 65 NY2d 189, 194, 198-201; Neumeier v Kuehner, 31 NY2d 121; Reale v Herco, Inc., 183 AD2d 163, 167; Roach v McGuire & Bennett, 146 AD2d 89, 91-93; Weisberg v Layne-New York Co., 132 AD2d 550).

The application of New Jersey law to the common-law contribution and implied indemnity claims interposed against Ogden in the third-party complaints does not violate New York public policy and New York has only a minimal interest in determining the extent of the remedy in those, actions (see, e.g., Cooney v Osgood Mach., supra). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted Ogden’s summary judgment motion. Santucci, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendants Ogden Services Corporation d/b/a Ogden Allied Services Corporation and Ogden Allied Eastern States Maintenance appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated October 20, 1994, which denied their motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of (1) the third-party complaint of American Standard, Inc., d/b/a New Jersey Trane Service, and (2) the first cause of action of the third-party complaint of Bell Communications Research, Inc. s/h/a Bell Communications, Inc.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the third-party complaint of American Standard, Inc., d/b/a New Jersey Trane Service and the first cause of action of the third-party complaint of Bell Communications Research, Inc., s/h/a Bell Communications, Inc., are dismissed.

Under New York’s choice of law rules, New Jersey law is applicable to bar the common-law contribution and implied indemnification claims interposed in the third-party actions by foreign domiciliaries against the injured plaintiff’s employer [600]*600Ogden Services Corporation d/b/a Ogden Allied Services Corporation and Ogden Allied Eastern States Maintenance (collectively referred to as Ogden) (see, e.g., Padula v Lilarn Props. Corp., 84 NY2d 519, 521; Cooney v Osgood Mach., 81 NY2d 66, 73-74; Schultz v Boy Scouts, 65 NY2d 189, 194, 198-201; Neumeier v Kuehner, 31 NY2d 121; Reale v Herco, Inc., 183 AD2d 163, 167; Roach v McGuire & Bennett, 146 AD2d 89, 91-93; Weisberg v Layne-New York Co., 132 AD2d 550).

The application of New Jersey law to the common-law contribution and implied indemnity claims interposed against Ogden in the third-party complaints does not violate New York public policy and New York has only a minimal interest in determining the extent of the remedy in those, actions (see, e.g., Cooney v Osgood Mach., supra). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted Ogden’s summary judgment motion. Santucci, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 599, 639 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/navallo-v-american-standard-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack