| Hoogland v Transport Expressway, Inc. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03412 [72 AD3d 1026] |
| April 27, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Cynthia Hoogland et al., Respondents, v TransportExpressway, Inc., et al., Defendants, Walmart Stores East, Inc., et al., Respondents, and FiducieLocation Pinard, Appellant (And a Third-Party Action.) (Action No. 1.) Denise Malkin,Respondent, v Transport Expressway, Inc., et al., Defendants, Walmart Stores East, Inc., et al.,Respondents, and Fiducie Location Pinard, Appellant. (Action No.2.) |
—[*1] Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Allan Young of counsel), fordefendants-respondents Walmart Stores East, Inc., and Daniel Hill. Geraghty, Foti & Suarez, LLP, c/o Mahoney & Keane, New York, N.Y. (John R. Geraghtyand Robert A. Suarez of counsel), for defendants-respondents Port Authority of New York andNew Jersey, Port Newark Container Terminal, LLC, P&O Nedlloyd Limited, and P&O PortsNorth America, Inc. Garcia & Stallone, Deer Park, N.Y. (Karl Zamurs of counsel), for defendants-respondentsNippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, NYK Line (North America) Inc., and New Amera Transit,Inc.
In related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the defendantFiducie Location Pinard appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the SupremeCourt, Orange County (Alessandro, J.), dated April 18, 2008, as granted those branches of thecross motion of the defendants Walmart Stores East, Inc., and Daniel Hill, the separate crossmotion of the defendants Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Port Newark ContainerTerminal, LLC, P&O Nedlloyd Limited, and P&O Ports North America, Inc., and the separatecross motion of the defendants Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, NYK Line (North America)Inc., and New Amera Transit, Inc., which were for summary judgment dismissing certain crossclaims insofar as asserted against them.[*2]
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealedfrom, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, its cross claims for common-law indemnificationwere, in actuality, for contribution, and are therefore barred by General Obligations Law §15-108 (c) (see Glaser v Fortunoff of Westbury Corp., 71 NY2d 643, 646-647 [1988]).Dillon, J.P., Covello, Miller and Chambers, JJ., concur.
Cross motion by the respondents Walmart Stores East, Inc., and Daniel Hill to dismiss anappeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated April 18, 2008, inter alia, onthe ground that it has been rendered academic. Separate cross motion by the respondents PortAuthority of New York and New Jersey, Port Newark Container Terminal, LLC, P&O NedlloydLimited, and P&O Ports North America, Inc., to dismiss the appeal, inter alia, in effect, on theground that the appellants are not aggrieved. Separate cross motion by the respondents NipponYusen Kabushiki Kaisha, NYK Line (North America), Inc., and New Amera Transit, Inc., todismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellants lack standing by virtue of GeneralObligations Law § 15-108. By decision and order on motion dated March 12, 2009, thecross motions were held in abeyance and referred to the Justices hearing the appeal fordetermination upon the argument or submission thereof.
Upon the papers filed in support of the cross motions and the papers filed in oppositionthereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is
Ordered that those branches of the cross motions which were to dismiss the appeal by thedefendants Transport Expressway, 3145221 Canada, Inc., and Sebastian Tremblay, are denied asacademic, as that appeal was previously withdrawn by order on application dated April 17, 2009;and it is further,
Ordered that those branches of the cross motions which were to dismiss the appeal by thedefendant Fiducie Location Pinard is denied. Dillon, J.P., Covello, Miller and Chambers, JJ.,concur.