Ward v. Copertino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ward v. Copertino

154 A.D.2d 528, 546 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12761

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

DecidedOctober 16, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 154 A.D.2d 528 (Ward v. Copertino) 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

Ward v. Copertino, 154 A.D.2d 528, 546 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for contribution and/or indemnification to recover damages paid in settlement of a prior negligence action, the defendant Town of New Windsor appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Green, J.), dated May 12, 1988, as denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the defendant Town of New Windsor’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it is granted, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The plaintiff Robert Ward commenced this action for contribution and/or indemnification to recover the moneys he had paid in settlement of a prior negligence action commenced by one Richard A. Copertino, an employee of the defendant Joseph Copertino (Richard’s brother), doing business as A-l Sewer Rooter Company.

It is now conceded by the plaintiff that, in light of the settlement, he cannot maintain a cause of action for contribution (see, General Obligations Law § 15-108; McDermott v City of New York, 50 NY2d 211, 220; Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v Blue Bird Coach Co., 140 AD2d 476).

In determining the viability of the plaintiff’s indemnification cause of action, an analysis of the underlying theory upon which recovery had been sought against the plaintiff in the prior negligence action is appropriate (see, Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 69 NY2d 559, 568). In the prior action, Richard A. Copertino sought to hold the plaintiff liable [529]*529pursuant to Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) based upon a breach of the plaintiff’s nondelegable duties as an owner of land upon which the accident took place (see, Copertino v Ward, 100 AD2d 565). Copertino did not seek to hold the plaintiff vicariously liable for any alleged acts or omissions by the Town of New Windsor. Therefore, even if the Town of New Windsor was found to have breached a duty to Copertino, the Town of New Windsor "could only be compelled to share responsibility for the harm” to Copertino (Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v Blue Bird Coach Co., supra, at 479). Thus, the plaintiff has not set forth a cause of action for indemnification. Mangano, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action for contribution and/or indemnification to recover damages paid in settlement of a prior negligence action, the defendant Town of New Windsor appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Green, J.), dated May 12, 1988, as denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the defendant Town of New Windsor’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it is granted, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The plaintiff Robert Ward commenced this action for contribution and/or indemnification to recover the moneys he had paid in settlement of a prior negligence action commenced by one Richard A. Copertino, an employee of the defendant Joseph Copertino (Richard’s brother), doing business as A-l Sewer Rooter Company.

It is now conceded by the plaintiff that, in light of the settlement, he cannot maintain a cause of action for contribution (see, General Obligations Law § 15-108; McDermott v City of New York, 50 NY2d 211, 220; Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v Blue Bird Coach Co., 140 AD2d 476).

In determining the viability of the plaintiff’s indemnification cause of action, an analysis of the underlying theory upon which recovery had been sought against the plaintiff in the prior negligence action is appropriate (see, Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 69 NY2d 559, 568). In the prior action, Richard A. Copertino sought to hold the plaintiff liable [529]*529pursuant to Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) based upon a breach of the plaintiff’s nondelegable duties as an owner of land upon which the accident took place (see, Copertino v Ward, 100 AD2d 565). Copertino did not seek to hold the plaintiff vicariously liable for any alleged acts or omissions by the Town of New Windsor. Therefore, even if the Town of New Windsor was found to have breached a duty to Copertino, the Town of New Windsor "could only be compelled to share responsibility for the harm” to Copertino (Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v Blue Bird Coach Co., supra, at 479). Thus, the plaintiff has not set forth a cause of action for indemnification. Mangano, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 528, 546 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-copertino-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack