Lettiere v. Martin Elevator Co., Inc.
Citation | 406 N.Y.S.2d 510,62 A.D.2d 810 |
Parties | Mary LETTIERE, as administratrix, etc., Plaintiff, v. MARTIN ELEVATOR CO., INC., Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, Bing and Bing, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. |
Decision Date | 03 July 1978 |
Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Donovan & Donovan, Hicksville (Francis J. Donovan, Hicksville, of counsel), for third-party defendant-appellant.
Lester, Schwab, Katz & Dwyer, New York City (James P. Harrington and Stephen P. Seligman, New York City, of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent.
Before HOPKINS, J. P., and LATHAM, TITONE and O'CONNOR, JJ.
On December 4, 1968 the plaintiff's decedent, employed as an elevator operator at an apartment building in Manhattan, fell into an elevator shaft from the lobby floor of the building. He sustained injuries which resulted in his death. Suit was brought against Bing and Bing, Inc. (Bing), the building's managing agent, and Martin Elevator Co., Inc. (Martin), the elevator maintenance company chosen by Bing to service the elevators at the building.
At the first trial of this action the cause of action against Bing was dismissed because the plaintiff's sole remedy as against it was pursuant to the Workmen's Compensation Law, since the decedent had been Bing's employee. The trial court also dismissed Martin's cross claim against Bing, after the jury returned a verdict of $225,000, apportioned 60% against Martin and 40% against Bing. On appeal we set aside that verdict, holding that the cross claim should be reinstated, and ordering a new trial due to certain errors in the Judge's charge to the jury (Lettiere v. Nameloc Estates, 53 A.D.2d 899, 385 N.Y.S.2d 629).
At the opening of the second trial the plaintiff and Martin settled the claim between them for $250,000, on a concession of liability by Martin, and a consent to the entry of judgment in that amount. The stipulation was that the consent could not be revoked; the entry of the judgment was postponed until the conclusion of the trial. Bing did not join in the stipulation. The trial court informed the jury that Martin and the plaintiff had consented to entry of the judgment, but that the stipulation was not binding on Bing. The revelation to the jury of that settlement between the plaintiff and Martin was, however, clearly prejudicial to Bing (cf. Sky v. Kahan-Frankl, 47 A.D.2d 939, 367 N.Y.S.2d 84).
The jury was charged that it must determine whether Martin was liable in any amount. If Martin was found liable, then it was to determine if, and to what extent, Bing was liable over to Martin. The jury found for the plaintiff, against Martin, and apportioned liability 25% against Martin and 75% against Bing.
Bing argues that the cross claim against it must be dismissed since Martin is barred by section 15-108 of the General Obligations Law from seeking contribution, since Martin entered into a stipulation with the plaintiff which constituted a release from liability.
Section 15-108 (subd. (c)) of the General Obligations Law states:
Prior to the commencement of the plaintiff's case, Martin's attorney (Schwab) and counsel for the plaintiff (Peters) entered into the following stipulation on the record:
Later, during the trial, the following colloquy took place:
Bing urges that Martin, in granting the plaintiff "an irrevocable...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Makeun v. State
...the Supreme Court matter prior to any jury verdict, it is clear that he would be prohibited from seeking contribution. Lettiere v. Martin Elevator Co., 62 A.D.2d 810 affd. 48 N.Y.2d 662 [421 N.Y.S.2d 879, 397 N.E.2d 390]. On the other hand, had a money judgment been entered against claimant......
-
Didner v. Keene Corp.
...nor does the statement quoted by the dissent constitute the kind of specific irrevocable agreement involved in Lettiere v. Martin Elevator, 62 A.D.2d 810, 406 N.Y.S.2d 510 affd. 48 N.Y.2d 662, 421 N.Y.S.2d 879, 397 N.E.2d 390. Appellant argues that plaintiff's "settlement" with Manville is ......
-
Pollicina v. Misericordia Hosp. Medical Center
...General Obligations Law § 15-108(c) does not apply to postjudgment settlements (cf., Didner v. Keene Corp., supra; Lettiere v. Martin El. Co., 62 A.D.2d 810, 406 N.Y.S.2d 510, affd. 48 N.Y.2d 662, 421 N.Y.S.2d 879, 397 N.E.2d 390), precludes application of General Obligations Law § 15-108(a......
-
Merchants Bank of New York v. Credit Suisse Bank
...citing Perlmutter v. Timely Toys, Inc., 8 A.D.2d 834, 190 N.Y.S.2d 107 (2d Dep't.1959). See also Lettiere v. Martin Elevator Co., Inc., 62 A.D.2d 810, 406 N.Y.S.2d 510, 512-13 (2d Dep't.1978). Merchants is, therefore, barred from seeking contribution from Credit 3. The Fraud Claim Merchants......