Opinion
February 20, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the third-party complaint of American Standard, Inc., d/b/a New Jersey Trane Service and the first cause of action of the third-party complaint of Bell Communications Research, Inc., s/h/a Bell Communications, Inc., are dismissed.
Under New York's choice of law rules, New Jersey law is applicable to bar the common-law contribution and implied indemnification claims interposed in the third-party actions by foreign domiciliaries against the injured plaintiff's employer Ogden Services Corporation d/b/a Ogden Allied Services Corporation and Ogden Allied Eastern States Maintenance (collectively referred to as Ogden) ( see, e.g., Padula v. Lilarn Props. Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 519, 521; Cooney v. Osgood Mach., 81 N.Y.2d 66, 73-74; Schultz v. Boy Scouts, 65 N.Y.2d 189, 194, 198-201; Neumeier v. Kuehner, 31 N.Y.2d 121; Reale v. Herco, Inc., 183 A.D.2d 163, 167; Roach v. McGuire Bennett, 146 A.D.2d 89, 91-93; Weisberg v. Layne-New York Co., 132 A.D.2d 550).
The application of New Jersey law to the common-law contribution and implied indemnity claims interposed against Ogden in the third-party complaints does not violate New York public policy and New York has only a minimal interest in determining the extent of the remedy in those actions ( see, e.g., Cooney v. Osgood Mach., supra). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted Ogden's summary judgment motion. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.