From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rapisarda v. Banco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 23, 1979
69 A.D.2d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)

Opinion

April 23, 1979


In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff as the result of an automobile accident, defendant Banco appeals, and defendants Rowan and Good Humor Corp. cross-appeal, from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated January 3, 1978, which granted plaintiffs' motion to dismiss defendant Banco's third-party complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Order reversed, on the law, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. The motion to dismiss, being predicated on the alleged status of the third-party defendant as the equivalent of a "primary parent" to the infant plaintiff (see Holodook v. Spencer, 36 N.Y.2d 35), is premature. Although perhaps subject to defeasance upon a proper showing, as drawn, the third-party complaint states a cause of action for indemnity or contribution (see Broome v. Horton, 53 A.D.2d 1030; Barrera v General Elec. Co., 84 Misc.2d 901). Rabin, J.P., Gulotta, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rapisarda v. Banco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 23, 1979
69 A.D.2d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)
Case details for

Rapisarda v. Banco

Case Details

Full title:LUCILLE RAPISARDA et al., Respondents, v. ROSALYN BANCO et al., Defendants…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 23, 1979

Citations

69 A.D.2d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)

Citing Cases

Bartels v. Westchester

f v. County of York, 198 Neb. 67; Hanson v. Rowe, 18 Ariz. App. 131; but see Pickett v. Washington County, 31…