Remet Corp. v. Estate of Pyne

• Decision Date: 27 December 2013
• Parties: REMET CORPORATION, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. The ESTATE OF James R. PYNE, Deceased, Katherine B. Pyne, Individually and as the Executor of the Last Will and Testament of James R. Pyne and as Trustee of the Trust Established Under Paragraph Third of the Last Will and Testament of James R. Pyne, Edward R. Wiehl, as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of James R. Pyne and as Trustee of the Trust Established Under Paragraph Third of the Last Will and Testament of James R. Pyne, The Trust Established Under Paragraph Third of the Last Will and Testament of James R. Pyne, Defendants–Appellants, et al., Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

112 A.D.3d 1313
977 N.Y.S.2d 823
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08690

REMET CORPORATION, Plaintiff–Respondent,
v.
The ESTATE OF James R. PYNE, Deceased, Katherine B. Pyne, Individually and as the Executor of the Last Will and Testament of James R. Pyne and as Trustee of the Trust Established Under Paragraph Third of the Last Will and Testament of James R. Pyne, Edward R. Wiehl, as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of James R. Pyne and as Trustee of the Trust Established Under Paragraph Third of the Last Will and Testament of James R. Pyne, The Trust Established Under Paragraph Third of the Last Will and Testament of James R. Pyne, Defendants–Appellants, et al., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Dec. 27, 2013.

[977 N.Y.S.2d 824]

Neil M. Gingold, Fayetteville, and Steates, Remmell, Steates & Dziekan, Utica, for Defendants–Appellants.

Hancock Estabrook, LLP, Syracuse (Janet D. Callahan of Counsel), and Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Plaintiff–Respondent.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, and WHALEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

In October 2002, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) sent plaintiff a notice letter identifying plaintiff as a potentially responsible party (PRP), along with four other entities, for the presence of hazardous waste in a section of the Erie Canal in the Town of Frankfort. The letter requested plaintiff to develop, implement, and finance a remedial program for the site and stated that, if plaintiff did not act, the DEC would perform the remediation itself and seek recovery from plaintiff as a PRP. Plaintiff demanded indemnification from defendants pursuant to an indemnification provision in an agreement between, inter alia, plaintiff and defendants' decedent. When defendants refused to indemnify plaintiff, plaintiff commenced this action seeking, inter alia, a declaration that its losses were subject to indemnification by defendants.

Defendants, with the exception of defendant JP Morgan Escrow Services, (hereafter, defendants) appeal from a judgment granting that part of plaintiff's motion seeking partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and declaring that plaintiff is “entitled to indemnification for all past environmental losses that have occurred to date and for all future environmental losses that will occur due to and arising out of the DEC investigation and/or remediation of the Erie Canal Site in Utica” pursuant to the indemnification...