From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miele v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 16, 1945
270 App. Div. 122 (N.Y. App. Div. 1945)

Opinion

November 16, 1945.

Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County, COLLINS, J.

Olin S. Nye of counsel ( Reginald V. Spell, attorney), for impleaded defendant-appellant.

Fred Iscol of counsel ( James Hall Prothero with him on the brief; Ignatius M. Wilkinson, Corporation Counsel), for respondent.


There can be no recovery over other than contribution as between joint tort-feasors, unless there is liability over by virtue of contract or by status ( Fox v. Western New York Motor Lines, Inc., 257 N.Y. 305, 307; Rhynders v. Greene, 255 App. Div. 401, 403).

The cross complaint here shows upon its face that there is no basis for a claim of indemnity against the impleaded defendant. Defendant-respondent is an active tort-feasor and no recovery over can be had from another wrongdoer ( Employers' Liability A. Corp. v. Post McCord, 286 N.Y. 254, 265). Nor can the language of the permit, or the provisions of the Administrative Code of the City of New York (§ 82d-4.0), relied upon by respondent, be construed as a contract to indemnify respondent against its own negligence ( Thompson-Starrett Co. v. Otis Elevator Co., 271 N.Y. 36, 41).

The order should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted.

MARTIN, P.J., DORE, COHN, CALLAHAN and WASSERVOGEL, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted.


Summaries of

Miele v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 16, 1945
270 App. Div. 122 (N.Y. App. Div. 1945)
Case details for

Miele v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ANGELO MIELE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, and CHARLES…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 16, 1945

Citations

270 App. Div. 122 (N.Y. App. Div. 1945)
58 N.Y.S.2d 407

Citing Cases

Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Pollack

But the impleader is limited to the prosecution of a "claim over", Cloud v. Martin, 273 App.Div. 769, 75…

Rivera v. 2297 Enter. Corp.

Plaintiff alleges that two patrons assaulted him in defendant's night club. Defendant impled the third-party…