Opinion
March 16, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hansel McGee, J.).
Renewal should have been granted to review the previously omitted proof of the indemnification arrangements between the defendants, the absence of which was critical to our prior finding that Westchester County is nothing more than a "nominal defendant" which did not "bear any monetary loss for plaintiffs' injuries" (supra, at 441, 442; see also, Esa v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 89 A.D.2d 865). Upon review of the indemnity agreement, we adhere to this finding, in view of the provision requiring that the County be named as an additional insured as a condition to a recovery against it.
Concur — Rubin, J.P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.