Bernardo v. Fordham Hoisting Equipment Co.

• Decision Date: 09 April 1959
• Citation: 185 N.Y.S.2d 817,6 N.Y.2d 733
• Parties: , 158 N.E.2d 509 Anthony BERNARDO, Plaintiff, v. FORDHAM HOISTING EQUIPMENT COMPANY et al., Defendants. FORDHAM HOISTING EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DONATO & GAGLIANO, INC., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 817

185 N.Y.S.2d 817

6 N.Y.2d 733, 158 N.E.2d 509

Anthony BERNARDO, Plaintiff, v.FORDHAM HOISTING EQUIPMENT COMPANY et al., Defendants.

FORDHAM HOISTING EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Inc., Third-PartyPlaintiff-Appellant, v.DONATO & GAGLIANO, INC., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 9, 1959.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 6 A.D.2d 619, 180 N.Y.S.2d 525.

Construction worker brought action against equipment company and one of its employees for injuries sustained by construction worker while attempting to repair defective equipment, which equipment company had leased to contractor.The equipment company filed a third-party complaint against the contractor, and the contractor made a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint as insufficient.

The Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County, Morris E. Spector, J., 12 Misc.2d 161, 170 N.Y.S.2d 139, entered an order denying the contractor's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint pursuant to Rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and the contractor appealed.

The Appellate Division, 6 A.D.2d 619, 180 N.Y.S.2d 525, reversed the order on the law, dismissed the third-party complaint, and held that equipment company had no common law right of indemnity or any claim for contractual indemnity and therefore could not maintain the third-party complaint.

The equipment company appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that the...