67 New York opinions name it 8 courts 1874–2025 10 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Board of Education v. Sargent, Webster, Crenshaw & Folleygreen2 sentences2025There are certainty possible scenarios in which the contribution claim may be legally sufficient depending on the facts developed during discovery ( see Board of Educ. of Hudson City School Dist. , 71 NY2d at 28 n 1 [noting that the contribution provisions (CPLR 1401) are "appliable in cases where a tort-feasor is charged with 'breach of warranty' in connection with a defective product that causes injury"]; Westbank Contr., Inc. , 46 AD3d at 1190 [reiterating that the determining factor regarding the availability of contribution is not the theory behind the underlying claim but the measure of 2025Turning to the contribution claim, the Court recognizes that the case law precludes a defendant from seeking contribution from third parties based on a straightforward breach of contract/breach of warranty claim involving economic losses for which a claim of contribution is simply not available ( see Board of Educ. of Hudson City School Dist. v Sargent, Webster, Crenshaw & Folley , 71 NY2d 21, 23-30 [1987]; see also Chatham Towers, Inc. v Castle Restoration & Const., Inc. , 151 AD3d 419, 420 [1st Dept 2017]; Westbank Contr., Inc. v Rondout Val. | 5 | 5 |
Raquet v. Braungreen2 sentences2003“A contribution claim can be made even when the contributor has no duty to the injured plaintiff [citations omitted]” (Raquet v Braun, 90 NY2d at 182 ). 1999A contribution claim may be interposed when two or more parties are alleged to be liable for damages for the same injury (see, CPLR 1401). “[C]ontribution is available 'whether or not the culpable parties are allegedly liable for the injury under the same or different theories’ ” (Raquet v Braun, 90 NY2d 177, 183 , quoting Nassau Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v Facilities Dev. | 4 | 7 |
Wheaton v. East End Commons Associates, LLCgreen2 sentences2012Furthermore, in opposition to the prima facie showing by Bartlett that it was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the contribution claim, the Entergy defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Bartlett owed the Entergy defendants a duty of care independent of its contractual obligations, or that Bartlett owed the injured plaintiff a duty of care (see Schultz v Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Co., 68 AD3d at 972 ; Wheaton v East End Commons Assoc., LLC, 50 AD3d 675, 678 [2008]; Roach v AVR Realty Co., LLC, 41 AD3d at 824 ). 2012Furthermore, in opposition to the prima facie showing by Bartlett that it was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the contribution claim, the Entergy defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Bartlett owed the Entergy defendants a duty of care independent of its contractual obligations, or that Bartlett owed the injured plaintiff a duty of care (see Schultz v Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Co., 68 AD3d at 972 ; Wheaton v East End Commons Assoc., LLC, 50 AD3d 675, 678 [2008]; Roach v AVR Realty Co., LLC, 41 AD3d at 824 ). | 2 | 3 |
Adirondack Combustion Technologies, Inc. v. Unicontrol, Inc.green2 sentences2025There are certainty possible scenarios in which the contribution claim may be legally sufficient depending on the facts developed during discovery ( see Board of Educ. of Hudson City School Dist. , 71 NY2d at 28 n 1 [noting that the contribution provisions (CPLR 1401) are "appliable in cases where a tort-feasor is charged with 'breach of warranty' in connection with a defective product that causes injury"]; Westbank Contr., Inc. , 46 AD3d at 1190 [reiterating that the determining factor regarding the availability of contribution is not the theory behind the underlying claim but the measure of 2025There are certainty possible scenarios in which the contribution claim may be legally sufficient depending on the facts developed during discovery ( see Board of Educ. of Hudson City School Dist. , 71 NY2d at 28 n 1 [noting that the contribution provisions (CPLR 1401) are "appliable in cases where a tort-feasor is charged with 'breach of warranty' in connection with a defective product that causes injury"]; Westbank Contr., Inc. , 46 AD3d at 1190 [reiterating that the determining factor regarding the availability of contribution is not the theory behind the underlying claim but the measure of | 2 | 2 |
Westbank Contracting, Inc. v. Rondout Valley Central School Districtgreen2 sentences2025There are certainty possible scenarios in which the contribution claim may be legally sufficient depending on the facts developed during discovery ( see Board of Educ. of Hudson City School Dist. , 71 NY2d at 28 n 1 [noting that the contribution provisions (CPLR 1401) are "appliable in cases where a tort-feasor is charged with 'breach of warranty' in connection with a defective product that causes injury"]; Westbank Contr., Inc. , 46 AD3d at 1190 [reiterating that the determining factor regarding the availability of contribution is not the theory behind the underlying claim but the measure of 2025There are certainty possible scenarios in which the contribution claim may be legally sufficient depending on the facts developed during discovery ( see Board of Educ. of Hudson City School Dist. , 71 NY2d at 28 n 1 [noting that the contribution provisions (CPLR 1401) are "appliable in cases where a tort-feasor is charged with 'breach of warranty' in connection with a defective product that causes injury"]; Westbank Contr., Inc. , 46 AD3d at 1190 [reiterating that the determining factor regarding the availability of contribution is not the theory behind the underlying claim but the measure of | 2 | 2 |
Chatham Towers, Inc. v. Castle Restoration & Construction, Inc.green2 sentences2025Turning to the contribution claim, the Court recognizes that the case law precludes a defendant from seeking contribution from third parties based on a straightforward breach of contract/breach of warranty claim involving economic losses for which a claim of contribution is simply not available ( see Board of Educ. of Hudson City School Dist. v Sargent, Webster, Crenshaw & Folley , 71 NY2d 21, 23-30 [1987]; see also Chatham Towers, Inc. v Castle Restoration & Const., Inc. , 151 AD3d 419, 420 [1st Dept 2017]; Westbank Contr., Inc. v Rondout Val. 2025Turning to the contribution claim, the Court recognizes that the case law precludes a defendant from seeking contribution from third parties based on a straightforward breach of contract/breach of warranty claim involving economic losses for which a claim of contribution is simply not available ( see Board of Educ. of Hudson City School Dist. v Sargent, Webster, Crenshaw & Folley , 71 NY2d 21, 23-30 [1987]; see also Chatham Towers, Inc. v Castle Restoration & Const., Inc. , 151 AD3d 419, 420 [1st Dept 2017]; Westbank Contr., Inc. v Rondout Val. | 2 | 2 |
126 Newton St., LLC v. Allbrand Commercial Windows & Doors, Inc.green2 sentences2025There are certainty possible scenarios in which the contribution claim may be legally sufficient depending on the facts developed during discovery ( see Board of Educ. of Hudson City School Dist. , 71 NY2d at 28 n 1 [noting that the contribution provisions (CPLR 1401) are "appliable in cases where a tort-feasor is charged with 'breach of warranty' in connection with a defective product that causes injury"]; Westbank Contr., Inc. , 46 AD3d at 1190 [reiterating that the determining factor regarding the availability of contribution is not the theory behind the underlying claim but the measure of 2025There are certainty possible scenarios in which the contribution claim may be legally sufficient depending on the facts developed during discovery ( see Board of Educ. of Hudson City School Dist. , 71 NY2d at 28 n 1 [noting that the contribution provisions (CPLR 1401) are "appliable in cases where a tort-feasor is charged with 'breach of warranty' in connection with a defective product that causes injury"]; Westbank Contr., Inc. , 46 AD3d at 1190 [reiterating that the determining factor regarding the availability of contribution is not the theory behind the underlying claim but the measure of | 2 | 2 |
Leon v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2024(Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994].) Discussion In sustaining the contribution claim, this court relied on Tower Bldg. 2024(Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994].) Discussion In sustaining the contribution claim, this court relied on Tower Bldg. | 2 | 2 |
Stone v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2022Dismissal of the contribution claim deprives Turner and JVS of their right to recover a pro rata share of any damages awarded based on Triborough's liability ( see Stone v Williams , 64 NY2d 639, 641 [1984]). 2022Dismissal of the contribution claim deprives Turner and JVS of their right to recover a pro rata share of any damages awarded based on Triborough's liability ( see Stone v Williams , 64 NY2d 639, 641 [1984]). | 2 | 2 |
Doundoulakis v. Town of Hempsteadgreen2 sentences2017Under article 14 of the CPLR, “[n]owhere is it required that the liability [for contribution] be predicated upon negligence” (Doundoulakis v Town of Hempstead, 42 NY2d 440, 451 [1977]), and the culpable conduct that supports a contribution claim may include the violation of a statutory duty (see Lippes v Atlantic Bank of N.Y., 69 AD2d 127, 137 [1979]; see also Belmer v HHM Assoc., Inc., 101 AD3d 526 , 528 [2012]). 1979The contribution claim can thus be based on negligence, breach of warranty, breach of a statutory duty, strict products liability, or any other, as long as it contributed to the damages suffered by the person to whom the party seeking contribution has been found liable” (Siegel, NY Prac, § 172; see, also, Doundoulakis v Town of Hempstead, 42 NY2d 440 ). | 2 | 2 |
LaMoy v. MH Contractors, LLCgreen2 sentences2012Servs., Inc., 94 AD3d 813, 814 [2012]; see LaMoy v MH Contrs., LLC, 78 AD3d 1311, 1313 [2010]; Dennebaum v Rotterdam Sq., 6 AD3d 1045, 1047 [2004]). 2012Servs., Inc., 94 AD3d 813, 814 [2012]; see LaMoy v MH Contrs., LLC, 78 AD3d 1311, 1313 [2010]; Dennebaum v Rotterdam Sq., 6 AD3d 1045, 1047 [2004]). | 2 | 2 |
Gordon v. Pitney Bowes Management Services, Inc.green2 sentences2012Servs., Inc., 94 AD3d 813, 814 [2012]; see LaMoy v MH Contrs., LLC, 78 AD3d 1311, 1313 [2010]; Dennebaum v Rotterdam Sq., 6 AD3d 1045, 1047 [2004]). 2012Servs., Inc., 94 AD3d 813, 814 [2012]; see LaMoy v MH Contrs., LLC, 78 AD3d 1311, 1313 [2010]; Dennebaum v Rotterdam Sq., 6 AD3d 1045, 1047 [2004]). | 2 | 2 |
Dennebaum v. Rotterdam Square, L.P.green2 sentences2012Servs., Inc., 94 AD3d 813, 814 [2012]; see LaMoy v MH Contrs., LLC, 78 AD3d 1311, 1313 [2010]; Dennebaum v Rotterdam Sq., 6 AD3d 1045, 1047 [2004]). 2012Servs., Inc., 94 AD3d 813, 814 [2012]; see LaMoy v MH Contrs., LLC, 78 AD3d 1311, 1313 [2010]; Dennebaum v Rotterdam Sq., 6 AD3d 1045, 1047 [2004]). | 2 | 2 |
Siegl v. New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc.green2 sentences2012Third-party defendant met his initial burden of establishing that he did not owe a duty to plaintiff or a duty to defendant independent of the contract (see Siegl v New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc., 84 AD3d 1702, 1703 ; Zemotel v Jeld-Wen, Inc., 50 AD3d 1586, 1587 ). 2012Third-party defendant met his initial burden of establishing that he did not owe a duty to plaintiff or a duty to defendant independent of the contract (see Siegl v New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc., 84 AD3d 1702, 1703 [2011]; Zemotel v Jeld-Wen, Inc., 50 AD3d 1586, 1587 [2008]). | 1 | 2 |
Zemotel v. Jeld-Wen, Inc.green2 sentences2012Third-party defendant met his initial burden of establishing that he did not owe a duty to plaintiff or a duty to defendant independent of the contract (see Siegl v New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc., 84 AD3d 1702, 1703 ; Zemotel v Jeld-Wen, Inc., 50 AD3d 1586, 1587 ). 2012Third-party defendant met his initial burden of establishing that he did not owe a duty to plaintiff or a duty to defendant independent of the contract (see Siegl v New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc., 84 AD3d 1702, 1703 [2011]; Zemotel v Jeld-Wen, Inc., 50 AD3d 1586, 1587 [2008]). | 1 | 2 |
Baratta v. Home Depot USA, Inc.green2 sentences2009Furthermore, in opposition to the prima facie showing by S & S that it was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the contribution claim, Bridgeport failed to demonstrate either that S & S owed Bridgeport a duty of care independent of its contractual obligations, or that S & S owed the plaintiff a duty of care (see Wheaton v East End Commons Assoc., 50 AD3d at 678 ; Roach v AVR Realty Co., LLC., 41 AD3d at 824; Baratta v Home Depot USA, 303 AD2d 434, 435 [2003]). 2007Auth., 40 AD3d 970 [2007]; Hites v Toys “R” Us, Inc., 33 AD3d 759 [2006]; Baratta v Home Depot USA, 303 AD2d 434 [2003]; Mitchell v Fiorini Landscape, 284 AD2d 313, 314 [2001]). | 1 | 2 |
Naughton v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2025As to the common-law indemnification claim, ACC Construction, as the indemnitee, must show that it was non-negligent and neither caused the accident nor supervised and controlled the injury-producing work ( see Naughton v City of New York, 94 AD3d 1, 6 [1st Dept 2012]). 2025As to the common-law indemnification claim, ACC Construction, as the indemnitee, must show that it was non-negligent and neither caused the accident nor supervised and controlled the injury-producing work ( see Naughton v City of New York, 94 AD3d 1, 6 [1st Dept 2012]). | 1 | 1 |
Petrucci v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2020The Defendants argue that the contribution claim should be dismissed because no finding of responsibility has been made in the Opioid Lawsuits, citing Petrucci v City of NY ( 167 AD2d 29, 32 [1st Dept 1991]. 2020The Defendants argue that the contribution claim should be dismissed because no finding of responsibility has been made in the Opioid Lawsuits, citing Petrucci v City of NY (167 AD2d 29, 32 [1st Dept 1991]. | 1 | 1 |
Becker v. Huss Co.green1 sentence2020We stated clearly in Roberts that it was, and always had been, illegal under the statutory language of the RSL to decontrol luxury apartments while receiving J-51 tax benefits (see 13 NY3d at 285-86 ; see also Becker v Huss Co., 43 NY2d 527, 542 [1978] [applying a new contribution requirement in Worker’s Compensation Law to conduct that happened prior to the statutory change because “the amendment neither created a new right nor impaired an existing one”]). | 1 | 1 |
| Del Vecchio v. Danielle Associates, LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lippes v. Atlantic Bankgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Belmer v. HHM Associates, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Hooper Associates Ltd. v. AGS Computers, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Richard Drzewinski v. Atlantic Scaffold & Ladder Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Canela v. TLH 140 Perry Street, LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chase Manhattan Bank v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld L.L.P.green | 1 | 1 |
| DeRosa v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Baje Realty Corp. v. Cutlergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mitchell v. Fiorini Landscape, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Cooney v. Osgood Machinery, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Sheehy v. Big Flats Community Day, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Sheehy v. Big Flats Community Day, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Mitchell v. New York Hospitalgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tarantola v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sommer v. Federal Signal Corp.
green
2 sentences2024"A contribution claim can be made even when the contributor has no duty to the injured plaintiff ( Sommer v Federal Signal Corp. , 79 NY2d 540, 559 ; Garrett v Holiday Inns , 58 NY2d 253, 261 ). 2011At common law, the defendant did not even have recourse against his joint tortfeasors, an inequity that has been addressed to some degree under the doctrine of contribution (see, Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540, 555-557 ). | 4 | 1994–2024 |
Schultz v. Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Co.
green
2 sentences2019Furthermore, in opposition to the prima facie showing by Elite that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the contribution claim, the Mall defendants failed to demonstrate either that Elite owed them a duty of care independent of its contractual obligations, or that Elite owed the plaintiff a duty of care ( see Del Vecchio v Danielle Assoc., LLC , 108 AD3d at 586; Proulx v Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC , 98 AD3d at 493 ; Schultz v Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Co. , 68 AD3d at 972 ; Roach v AVR Realty Co., LLC , 41 AD3d at 824 ). 2012Furthermore, in opposition to the prima facie showing by Bartlett that it was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the contribution claim, the Entergy defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Bartlett owed the Entergy defendants a duty of care independent of its contractual obligations, or that Bartlett owed the injured plaintiff a duty of care (see Schultz v Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Co., 68 AD3d at 972 ; Wheaton v East End Commons Assoc., LLC, 50 AD3d 675, 678 [2008]; Roach v AVR Realty Co., LLC, 41 AD3d at 824 ). | 3 | 2012–2019 |
Roach v. AVR Realty Co.
green
2 sentences2019Furthermore, in opposition to the prima facie showing by Elite that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the contribution claim, the Mall defendants failed to demonstrate either that Elite owed them a duty of care independent of its contractual obligations, or that Elite owed the plaintiff a duty of care ( see Del Vecchio v Danielle Assoc., LLC , 108 AD3d at 586; Proulx v Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC , 98 AD3d at 493 ; Schultz v Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Co. , 68 AD3d at 972 ; Roach v AVR Realty Co., LLC , 41 AD3d at 824 ). 2012Furthermore, in opposition to the prima facie showing by Bartlett that it was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the contribution claim, the Entergy defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Bartlett owed the Entergy defendants a duty of care independent of its contractual obligations, or that Bartlett owed the injured plaintiff a duty of care (see Schultz v Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Co., 68 AD3d at 972 ; Wheaton v East End Commons Assoc., LLC, 50 AD3d 675, 678 [2008]; Roach v AVR Realty Co., LLC, 41 AD3d at 824 ). | 3 | 2012–2019 |
Dole v. Dow Chemical Co.
red
2 sentences2013Co. ( 30 NY2d 143 ), provides that ‘two or more persons who are subject to liability for damages for the same personal injury, injury to property or wrongful death, may claim contribution among them whether or not an action has been brought or a judgment has been rendered against the person from whom contribution is sought.’ The section ‘applies not only to joint tortfeasors, but also to concurrent, successive, independent, alternative, and even intentional tortfeasors’ ” (Schauer, 54 NY2d at 5 , quoting Siegel, NY Prac § 172 at 213 [1978], and citing McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinne 1983Co. (supra), the defendant manufacturer of a chemical alleged to have caused the death of plaintiff’s decedent was permitted to assert a contribution claim against the decedent’s employer, despite the bar imposed by the Workers’ Compensation Law to direct suit by plaintiff against the employer. | 3 | 1983–2013 |
Rock v. Reed-Prentice Division of Package Machinery Co.
green
2 sentences2003There is nothing at all to suggest that this statute was ever intended to nullify a preexisting judgment.” ( 39 NY2d at 41 .) The year after Rock was decided, the Court of Appeals , clarified that, where a settlement postdates judgment against the settlor, the settlor’s claim for contribution survives the settlement (as would also, by necessary implication, the nonsettlor’s contribution claim against the settlor) even if the contribution claim had not been reduced to judgment as of the time of the settlement (State of New York v County of Sullivan, supra). 2003Moreover, applying General Obligations Law § 15-108 (b) to bar Chase’s contribution claim would not directly violate the teaching of Rock by “nullify [ing] a pre-existing judgment” ( 39 NY2d at 41 ), since Chase has no pre-existing judgment for contribution against Jefferies, and the dismissal of Chase’s contribution claim will have no effect on Chase’s previously adjudi cated (and satisfied) liability to 50-Off. | 3 | 1993–2003 |
Presbyterian Hospital v. Kramer
neutral
2 sentences2025There are certainty possible scenarios in which the contribution claim may be legally sufficient depending on the facts developed during discovery ( see Board of Educ. of Hudson City School Dist. , 71 NY2d at 28 n 1 [noting that the contribution provisions (CPLR 1401) are "appliable in cases where a tort-feasor is charged with 'breach of warranty' in connection with a defective product that causes injury"]; Westbank Contr., Inc. , 46 AD3d at 1190 [reiterating that the determining factor regarding the availability of contribution is not the theory behind the underlying claim but the measure of 2025There are certainty possible scenarios in which the contribution claim may be legally sufficient depending on the facts developed during discovery ( see Board of Educ. of Hudson City School Dist. , 71 NY2d at 28 n 1 [noting that the contribution provisions (CPLR 1401) are "appliable in cases where a tort-feasor is charged with 'breach of warranty' in connection with a defective product that causes injury"]; Westbank Contr., Inc. , 46 AD3d at 1190 [reiterating that the determining factor regarding the availability of contribution is not the theory behind the underlying claim but the measure of | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Garrett v. Holiday Inns, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024"A contribution claim can be made even when the contributor has no duty to the injured plaintiff ( Sommer v Federal Signal Corp. , 79 NY2d 540, 559 ; Garrett v Holiday Inns , 58 NY2d 253, 261 ). 1997A contribution claim can be made even when the contributor has no duty to the injured plaintiff (Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540, 559 ; Garrett v Holiday Inns, 58 NY2d 253, 261 ). | 2 | 1997–2024 |
Schauer v. Joyce
green
2 sentences2013Co. ( 30 NY2d 143 ), provides that ‘two or more persons who are subject to liability for damages for the same personal injury, injury to property or wrongful death, may claim contribution among them whether or not an action has been brought or a judgment has been rendered against the person from whom contribution is sought.’ The section ‘applies not only to joint tortfeasors, but also to concurrent, successive, independent, alternative, and even intentional tortfeasors’ ” (Schauer, 54 NY2d at 5 , quoting Siegel, NY Prac § 172 at 213 [1978], and citing McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinne 2013Co. ( 30 NY2d 143 ), provides that ‘two or more persons who are subject to liability for damages for the same personal injury, injury to property or wrongful death, may claim contribution among them whether or not an action has been brought or a judgment has been rendered against the person from whom contribution is sought.’ The section ‘applies not only to joint tortfeasors, but also to concurrent, successive, independent, alternative, and even intentional tortfeasors’ ” (Schauer, 54 NY2d at 5 , quoting Siegel, NY Prac § 172 at 213 [1978], and citing McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinne | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Nassau Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Facilities Development Corp.
green
2 sentences1999Corp., 71 NY2d 599, 603 ). 1999Corp., 71 NY2d 599, 603 ). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Rosado v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc.
green
2 sentences1993Because SOS has settled with plaintiffs, CSO’s cross claim would be dismissable upon a motion by SOS because there is no factual basis for CSO’s "indemnification” claim, which in reality is a contribution claim (see, General Obligations Law § 15-108 [b]; Rosado v Proctor & Schwartz, 66 NY2d 21, 24-25 ). 1990While General Obligations Law § 15-108 immunizes a settling tortfeasor from a contribution claim, it does not immunize such party from an indemnity claim (see, McDermott v City of New York, 50 NY2d 211 ), which shifts the entire loss to another to prevent an unjust or unsatisfactory result (Rosado v Proctor & Schwartz, 66 NY2d 21, 24 ). | 2 | 1990–1993 |
McDermott v. City of New York
green
2 sentences1990While General Obligations Law § 15-108 immunizes a settling tortfeasor from a contribution claim, it does not immunize such party from an indemnity claim (see, McDermott v City of New York, 50 NY2d 211 ), which shifts the entire loss to another to prevent an unjust or unsatisfactory result (Rosado v Proctor & Schwartz, 66 NY2d 21, 24 ). 1985Inasmuch as an entire shifting of the loss to another would not act as a disincentive to settlement or necessitate an examination of relative degrees of fault, indemnification claims are not barred (McDermott v City of New York, 50 NY2d 211, 218-219 , supra; Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297 ). | 2 | 1985–1990 |
| Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Proulx v. Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Robinson Redevelopment Co. v. Anderson green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Clarke v. Davis green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Hites v. Toys \R\" Us green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Torchio v. New York City Housing Authority green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. County of Sullivan green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Usyk v. Track Side Blazers, Inc. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Lewis v. Lewis green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Talcove v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Rocanova v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Touloumis v. Chalem green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Blass v. Hennessey green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Williams v. Weiser green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Morales v. Walter green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Carrols Corp. v. Candy Candy, Inc. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Hagan v. Comstat Security, Inc. neutral | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Hosmer v. Distler green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Martinez v. Camardella green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Armstrong v. Petsche neutral | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Weinheimer v. Hoffman green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Southbridge Towers, Inc. green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Mielcarek v. Knights green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Blum v. Good Humor Corp. green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Riviello v. Waldron green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Greene v. Greene green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Vassar v. Jackson neutral | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Wattecamps v. Artkraft Strauss Sign Corp. neutral | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Adams v. Lindsay green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.