Opinion
2007-868 Q C.
Decided October 31, 2008.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Lee A. Mayersohn, J.), entered March 22, 2007. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied a motion by third-party defendants to dismiss the third-party complaint.
Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed without costs and motion by third-party defendants to dismiss the third-party complaint granted.
PRESENT: GOLIA, J.P., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ.
In this action, plaintiffs seek to recover damages from defendant Yeoung Ki Chae for personal injuries they allegedly sustained in an automobile accident while they were passengers in a vehicle operated by defendant. Defendant commenced a third-party action against third-party defendants, Jie Chen and Hai Bing Shen, alleging that a vehicle operated and owned by them, respectively, struck his vehicle, and seeking, inter alia, apportionment of liability and, in effect, contribution. Prior to the commencement of the third-party action, each injured plaintiff executed a general release to third-party defendants in exchange for $500. Third-party defendants moved, inter alia, to dismiss the third-party complaint on the ground of release, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (5). The court below denied the motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, stating, among other things, that third-party plaintiff was not a party to the releases and that, in the event of any judgment, apportionment of damages would be calculated in accordance with General Obligations Law § 15-108. This appeal by third-party defendants ensued.
General Obligations Law § 15-108 precludes actions for contribution against settling tortfeasors ( Rosado v Proctor Schwartz, 66 NY2d 21, 24). Thus, the releases in the present matter serve to relieve third-party defendants "from liability to any other person for contribution" as provided by CPLR article 14 ( see Tereshchenko v Lynn, 36 AD3d 684). With respect to defendant's claim for apportionment, any verdict in favor of plaintiffs against defendant will be reduced in the amount of third-party-defendants' equitable share of the damages, if any ( id.; see General Obligations Law § 15-108 [a]).
Based upon the executed releases, the court below should have dismissed the third-party action. Consequently, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the motion by third-party defendants to dismiss the third-party complaint is granted.
Golia, J.P., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.