Hyperlawhypertext legal database Regency Savings Bank v. Brodsky 221 A.D.2d 180

← Cases

Regency Savings Bank v. Brodsky

221 A.D.2d 180 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1995-11-09 English

Contents

Majority

p. 180
Regency Savings Bank, Plaintiff, v Norman Brodsky, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Third-Party Defendants. Mintz & Fraade, P. C., Formerly Known as Mintz, Fraade & Zeiger, et al., Third-Party Defendants and Fourth-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v Harvey Haber, Fourth-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Fourth-Party Defendants. Regency Savings Bank, Plaintiff, v Norman Brodsky, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Third-Party Defendants. Mintz & Fraade, P. C., Formerly Known as Mintz, Fraade & Zeiger, et al., Third-Party Defendants and Fourth-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v Norman Leben, Fourth-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Fourth-Party Defendants.
[633 NYS2d 38]

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered on or about January 18,1994 and September 1, 1994, which, inter alia, respectively, denied fourth-party defendant-appellant Leben’s motion to dismiss the fourth-party complaint as against him for failure to state a cause of action, and which upon reargument reinstated the fourth-party complaint against fourth-party defendant-appellant Harvey Haber, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

While the fourth-party plaintiffs may not seek indemnification for the fraud, misrepresentation, and failure to exercise due diligence alleged in the third-party complaint (Glaser v Fortunoffof Westbury Corp., 71 NY2d 643 , 646-647), we sustain the fourth-party complaint as against appellants since the fifth and sixth causes of action thereof, liberally construed, are sufficient to state causes of action for contribution (see, Taft v Shaffer Trucking, 52 AD2d 255 ; Trustees of Columbia Univ. v Mitchell/Giurgola Assocs., 109 AD2d 449 ). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

Cases cited