You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE RELEASE EXECUTED BY PLAINTIFF WITH RESPECT TO TWO DEFENDANTS...
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE RELEASE EXECUTED BY PLAINTIFF WITH RESPECT TO TWO DEFENDANTS PRECLUDED AN ACTION FOR CONTRIBUTION BY A THIRD DEFENDANT WHICH WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE RELEASE, IT DID NOT PRECLUDE AN ACTION FOR COMMON-LAW INDEMNIFICATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the release executed by plaintiff in this workplace injury case precluded a contribution action by a defendant which was not a party to the release, but did not preclude an action for common-law indemnification:

In 2016, plaintiff was allegedly injured while working at a commercial construction site. Plaintiff accepted $2,000 in settlement of his claims against third-party defendants, Village Air and Electric, Inc. and Jimerico Construction, Inc. — his employer and the contractor that retained it to do work at the construction site, respectively — and executed a release agreeing to hold them harmless. He then commenced this action against defendant, another contractor whose employees had allegedly caused the condition that led to his injuries. Defendant answered and impleaded Village Air and Jimerico, claiming that it was entitled to contribution and/or indemnification.

Jimerico moved … to dismiss the third-party complaint on the ground that the release executed by plaintiff defeated the contribution and indemnification claims (see CPLR 3211 [a] [5]; General Obligations Law § 15-108) … .

… [T]he release executed by plaintiff “relieve[d] [Jimerico] from liability to any other person for contribution” pursuant to CPLR article 14 and, as a result, Supreme Court should have dismissed defendant’s contribution claim against Jimerico (General Obligations Law § 15-108 [b] …). In contrast, Jimerico’s “settlement with . . . plaintiff did not preclude [defendant] from seeking common-law indemnification from” it … . Koretnicki v Northwoods Concrete, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03445, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

You might also like
VERDICT FINDING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NEGLIGENT BUT FURTHER FINDING THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE STUDENT’S SUICIDE WAS NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE; PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED BULLYING AT SCHOOL CAUSED THEIR SON’S SUICIDE (THIRD DEPT).
ONCE A STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE WAS FILED SUPREME COURT LACKED ANY SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PROCEEDING AND THE MOTION PRACTICE SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND; A PLENARY ACTION WAS REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT). ​
The Third Dept Upheld the Statutory Amendment Cutting Off Reimbursement of Medicaid Overburden Expenses Incurred Prior to 2006—However the Court Imposed a Six-Month Grace Period Before the Amendment Kicks In [The Fourth Dept Dealt with the Same Question in a Decision Dated 11-14-14—Although the Fourth Dept Also Upheld the Amendment, It Did Not Impose a Grace Period and Did Not Use the Same Reasoning]
ALTHOUGH PETITIONER WAS ADJUDICATED A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER AFTER HIS RELEASE FROM PRISON ON A PRIOR RAPE CONVICTION, HE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS OF THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT AFTER HIS RELEASE FROM PRISON ON A SUBSEQUENT ROBBERY/BURGLARY CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT).
​ THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE TRAFFIC STOP, THE 40-MINUTE DETENTION, THE CALLING OF DEFENDANT’S PAROLE OFFICER, AND THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR BY THE PAROLE OFFICER, WERE VALID; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE JUSTIFICATION FOR FURTHER DETENTION AROSE ONLY AFTER THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE LIMITED DETENTION BASED ON THE TRAFFIC STOP HAD DISSIPATED (THIRD DEPT). ​
COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATE FACTORS BEFORE PROCEEDING TO TRIAL IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE, DEFENDANT HAD MADE ALL PRIOR APPEARANCES AND NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE AT THE TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).
THERE WAS NO PROOF IN THE RECORD SUPPORTING THE FINDING THAT THE MISSOURI CONVICTION WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEW YORK FELONY; THEREFORE THE RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT WAS REDUCED BY 10 POINTS (THIRD DEPT).
INADVERTENT RECORDING OF A CONVERSATION BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE, NO TESTIMONY THE RECORDING WAS NOT ALTERED AND NO EVIDENCE OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SUPREME COURT WAS BOUND TO FOLLOW A FIRST DEPARTMENT DECISION BECAUSE THERE... UNDER THE TERMS OF THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND THE APPLICABLE INSURANCE LAW...