The order is further modified by granting defendants' motions to the extent of dismissing the cause of action brought by the City of Buffalo for damages insofar as it seeks recovery for destroyed and damaged fire vehicles and equipment. The damage and destruction to the City of Buffalo's fire vehicles and equipment was a foreseeable risk when the City Fire Department responded to the call for assistance and the rationale underlying the Fireman's Rule is applicable here (see, Black Indus. v Emco Helicopters, 19 Wn. App. 697, 577 P.2d 610). Additionally, the order is modified by dismissing the City's cause of action as against all defendants, except the Wilson defendants, for salary or wages and medical expenses incurred on behalf of the deceased or injured firefighters (see, General Municipal Law § 207-a; City of Utica v Holt, 88 Misc.2d 206, 209-210), and by dismissing the City's cause of action insofar as it relates to the expense incurred in boarding up or demolishing property and removing debris from property other than its own. "[P]ublic expenditures made in the performance of governmental functions are not recoverable" (Koch v Consolidated Edison Co., 62 N.Y.2d 548, 560, rearg denied 63 N.Y.2d 771, cert denied 469 U.S. 1210).

The nature of the duties may differ with the defendants (see CPLR 1401; and see City of Rochester v. MacKnight Kirmmse French, 75 A.D.2d 990; Taft v. Shaffer Trucking, 52 A.D.2d 255), but in each case a duty must be owed to plaintiff and not to some other person. Similarly, an indemnity cause of action can be sustained only if the third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendant have breached a duty to plaintiff and also if some duty to indemnify exists between them (see Smith v. Hooker Chem. Plastics Corp., 83 A.D.2d 199, 202, supra; Sea Ins. Co. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 71 A.D.2d 51, 54; Fladerer v Needleman, 30 A.D.2d 371, 373; Bush Term. Bldgs. Co. v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 11 A.D.2d 220, 224 [BREITEL, J.], revd on other grounds 9 N.Y.2d 426; City of Utica v. Holt, 88 Misc.2d 206 [HANCOCK, J.]; 42 CJS, Indemnity, § 2, p 565; Restatement, Torts 2d, § 886B). The rule is stated in the Restatement as follows: "(1) If two persons are liable in tort to a third person for the same harm and one of them discharges the liability of both, he is entitled to indemnity from the other if the other would be unjustly enriched at his expense by the discharge of the liability."

In view of the foregoing, the motion to dismiss the complaint herein will be denied. (See, also, City of Utica v Holt, 88 Misc.2d 206, 210.)