Rosado v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Fein, J.
The facts are fairly stated in the dissent.
It is conceded that no claim for contribution is now available. Any such claim, founded upon negligence, has been extinguished by reason of the settlement of plaintiff’s claims against the third-party defendant (Comet) and the third-party plaintiff (Proctor) (General Obligations Law, § 15-108, subds [b], [c]; McDermott v City of New York, 50 NY2d 211, 220). The only issue is whether Comet can be held liable to indemnify Proctor, either (1) under the terms of the contract between them, which it is conceded contains no…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Voss v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Micallef v. Miehle Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Codling v. PagliaNew York Court of Appeals · 1973
- Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Division of Package Machinery Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
- McDermott v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Gibbs-Alfano v. BurtonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002
- Gibbs-Alfano v. BurtonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002
- American Building Maintenance Co. v. L'Enfant Plaza Properties, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- Post v. Belmont Country Club, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2004
- Moore v. WilliamsDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1995
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.