Negron v. Topelson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Negron v. Topelson

50 A.D.3d 531, 854 N.Y.S.2d 894

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

DecidedApril 24, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.3d 531 (Negron v. Topelson) 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

Negron v. Topelson, 50 A.D.3d 531, 854 N.Y.S.2d 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Supreme [532]*532Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered March 30, 2007, dismissing the third-party complaint as barred by General Obligations Law § 15-108 (c), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The plain language of General Obligations Law § 15-108 (c) bars the contribution claim of the settling defendant/third-party plaintiff against the nonsettling third-party defendant (see Chase Manhattan Bank v Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, 309 AD2d 173, 174 [2003]). As the Court of Appeals has stated, “[S]urrender of the right to contribution is a small price to ask of a defendant who is intent on avoiding litigation” (Rock v Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co., 39 NY2d 34, 41 [1976]).

We have considered the third-party plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Supreme [532]*532Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered March 30, 2007, dismissing the third-party complaint as barred by General Obligations Law § 15-108 (c), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The plain language of General Obligations Law § 15-108 (c) bars the contribution claim of the settling defendant/third-party plaintiff against the nonsettling third-party defendant (see Chase Manhattan Bank v Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, 309 AD2d 173, 174 [2003]). As the Court of Appeals has stated, “[S]urrender of the right to contribution is a small price to ask of a defendant who is intent on avoiding litigation” (Rock v Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co., 39 NY2d 34, 41 [1976]).

We have considered the third-party plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 531, 854 N.Y.S.2d 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/negron-v-topelson-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack