Opinion
2002-07472
Argued March 11, 2003.
April 7, 2003.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, negligence, and malpractice, the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered July 1, 2002, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the third-party complaint and granted the cross motion of the third-party plaintiffs for leave to amend the third-party complaint to interpose a claim for contribution.
Milber Makris Plousadis Seiden, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Marisa Landa of counsel), for third-party defendant-appellant.
McCullough, Goldberger Staudt, LLP, White Plains, N.Y (William Simon, Ruth F-L. Post, and Anne DeSutter of counsel), for defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents.
Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., DAVID S. RITTER, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Accepting the allegations of the third-party complaint as true and according the respondents the benefit of every favorable inference to be drawn therefrom, the complaint adequately pleads a claim for indemnity (see Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83; 17 Vista Fee Assocs. v. Teachers Ins. and Annuity Assn. of Am., 259 A.D.2d 75; County of Westchester v. Becket Assoc., 102 A.D.2d 34, affd 66 N.Y.2d 642). Further, contrary to the appellant's contention, the proposed amendment of the third-party complaint to interpose a claim for contribution is not patently lacking in merit (see Crimmins Contr. Co. v. City of New York, 74 N.Y.2d 166; Board of Educ. of City of N.Y. v. Mars Assocs., 133 A.D.2d 800; Robinson Redevelopment Co. v. Anderson, 155 A.D.2d 755). Thus, the Supreme Court properly permitted the amendment (see CPLR 3025[b]; Edenwald Contr. Co. v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 957).
PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, FEUERSTEIN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.