Fragedis v. Farrell Lines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 March 1985 |
| Citation | 489 N.Y.S.2d 40,64 N.Y.2d 987,478 N.E.2d 181 |
| Parties | , 478 N.E.2d 181 Emanuel FRAGEDIS et al., Plaintiffs, v. FARRELL LINES, INC., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.) FRANK J. HOLLERAN, INC., Fourth-Party Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL MARITIME SERVICES CORP., Fourth-Party Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 101 A.D.2d 1034, 475 N.Y.S.2d 966, should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff, a longshoreman, brought this action against a ship owner to recover for injuries sustained when he fell into a gap left by a wooden platform constructed in the ship's hold. The vessel's owner impleaded Frank H. Holleran, Inc., the marine carpentry firm which had built the platform. Holleran in turn brought a fourth-party action against Universal Maritime Services Corp., a stevedoring company, which, as plaintiff's employer, had paid plaintiff benefits due under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 USC § 901 et seq.) (LHWCA). Universal's motion for summary judgment dismissing the fourth-party complaint was granted, and the Appellate Division affirmed without opinion.
The LHWCA prohibits a party found liable in negligence to a longshoreman from seeking contribution from a compensation-paying stevedore (33 USC § 905). It also prohibits a negligent vessel from obtaining indemnity from such stevedore (33 USC § 905). Though the LHWCA does not necessarily preclude a nonvessel from bringing an action for indemnity against a stevedore (see, Zapico v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 579 F.2d 714), here Holleran has failed to meet its heavy burden of demonstrating any basis for an implied agreement of indemnification by the stevedore. There was no basis for an indemnification action either in the agreement between Universal and the vessel or in the relationship between Universal and Holleran (see, Mango v. Waterman S.S. Lines, 89 A.D.2d 958, 454 N.Y.S.2d 105), and therefore summary judgment was properly granted dismissing the fourth-party complaint.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stuto v. Coastal Dry Dock & Repair Corp.
...from the employer was not the owner of the vessel itself, its action was not barred (33 U.S.C. § 905[b]; Fragedis v. Farrell Lines, 64 N.Y.2d 987, 489 N.Y.S.2d 40, 478 N.E.2d 181; Vargas v. American Export Lines, 107 A.D.2d 349, 486 N.Y.S.2d 196, supra We have considered the parties' remain......
-
Pennisi v. Standard Fruit & S.S. Co.
...S.Ct. 277, 96 L.Ed. 318; Triguero v. Consol. Rail Corp., supra; Zapico v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 579 F.2d 714; Fragedis v. Farrell Lines, 64 N.Y.2d 987, 489 N.Y.S.2d 40, 478 N.E.2d 181; Magno v. Waterman Steamship Lines, supra). The exclusivity provision of § 905(a) immunizes such employer from ......
-
Colamarino v. City of New York
...liable in negligence to a longshoreman from seeking contribution from a compensation-paying employer (see, Fragedis v. Farrell Lines, 64 N.Y.2d 987, 489 N.Y.S.2d 40, 478 N.E.2d 181). Despite the foregoing, the manufacturer alleges that the Supreme Court erred in dismissing its third-party c......
-
Agnese v. Taylor Mach. Works, Inc.
...compensation-paying employer from liability other than under the Act (see, 33 U.S.C. § 905[a]; Fragedis v. Farrell Lines, 64 N.Y.2d 987, 489 N.Y.S.2d 40, 478 N.E.2d 181; Kenny v. Bacolo, 61 N.Y.2d 642, 472 N.Y.S.2d 78, 460 N.E.2d 219; Colamarino v. The City of New York, 166 A.D.2d 404, 560 ......