From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Merritt Meridian v. Paramount Fabricators

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 1995
221 A.D.2d 420 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

November 13, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted for a new trial at which the plaintiff may present evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant Paramount Fabricators to offset its counterclaim, which is deemed to have been established.

In September of 1987, the plaintiff bought a carbon filter vessel from the defendant Paramount Fabricators (hereinafter Paramount). The plaintiff alleged that the vessel spontaneously combusted, causing a fire which resulted in property damage and additional labor costs to it. The plaintiff filed a claim with its insurance company, Royal Insurance Company (hereinafter Royal), which paid a portion of the claim. The plaintiff subrogated its rights to the extent that it was paid by Royal, who brought this action on the plaintiff's behalf against the defendants, Paramount and Westates Carbon Co., Inc. (hereinafter Westates), the manufacturer of the carbon that was used in the vessel.

At trial, Royal settled with Paramount and Westates. The plaintiff gave a general release to Westates and a limited release to Paramount, reserving its right to offset Paramount's counterclaim against it for the balance due on the purchase price of the carbon filter vessel. However, at the trial of Paramount's counterclaim, the court prohibited the plaintiff from offsetting Paramount's counterclaim, which sounded in contract, with evidence of the damages that it incurred due to the fire allegedly caused by Paramount's negligent sale to it of a defective carbon filter vessel. We find that the trial court erred.

The law permits a party to offset damages with a claim that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence (see, James Talcott, Inc. v Winco Sales Corp., 14 N.Y.2d 227; Bendat v Premier Broadcast Group, 175 A.D.2d 536). Also, a party may offset a contract claim with a tort claim (see, McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C203:9, at 160; Rochester-Genesee Regional Transp. Dist. v Trans World Airlines, 86 Misc.2d 1011). Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to offset Paramount's counterclaim, which sounded in contract, with its claim, which sounded in negligence (see, Rochester-Genesee Regional Transp. Dist. v Trans World Airlines, supra).

Contrary to Paramount's contentions, the plaintiff was not precluded from offsetting Paramount's counterclaim by reason of its release, which was only a limited release in both language and intent (see, Mangini v McClurg, 24 N.Y.2d 556), or by the absence of a pleaded affirmative defense since the plaintiff's claims were all asserted in the complaint (see, CPLR 3018 [b]; James Talcott, Inc. v Winco Sales Corp., supra, at 233).

The plaintiff, however, is precluded from presenting evidence at the new trial to prove that the purchase price of the carbon filter vessel, which is the subject of Paramount's counterclaim, included the price of liability insurance that was never provided. The plaintiff was given an opportunity to prove this issue at the first trial, and it failed to do so. Miller, J.P., Thompson, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Merritt Meridian v. Paramount Fabricators

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 1995
221 A.D.2d 420 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Merritt Meridian v. Paramount Fabricators

Case Details

Full title:MERRITT MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellant, v. PARAMOUNT…

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

Date published: Nov 13, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 420 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
633 N.Y.S.2d 812

Citing Cases

Saulsbury v. Durfee

ct with respect to defendant's entitlement to an offset based on a partial failure of consideration because…

Saulsbury v. Durfee

We conclude that there remain issues of fact with respect to defendant's entitlement to an offset based on a…