From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burdick v. Pintarelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 27, 1976
52 A.D.2d 1027 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Opinion

May 27, 1976


Appeal by the third-party defendant from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered October 2, 1975 in Rensselaer County, which denied a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. The present action arises out of an automobile accident which occurred on February 6, 1971. Plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile owned and being operated by Frank Taylor, the third-party defendant's testate, which was in collision with a vehicle owned by defendant and third-party plaintiff Gilbert Stores, Co., Inc., and operated by defendant third-party plaintiff Tony Pintarelli. On March 2, 1972 plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement with a covenant not to sue with the representative of Taylor's estate and, thereafter, commenced the present action alleging active negligence on the part of the defendants. The defendants brought a third-party action against the estate of Taylor. The third-party defendant moved to dismiss the complaint in such action on the grounds that the settlement agreement and covenant not to sue precluded the third-party plaintiff from seeking indemnification or contribution. Special Term denied the motion and this appeal ensued. In Jordan v County of Schoharie ( 46 A.D.2d 716) and Valentino v State of New York ( 44 A.D.2d 338) we considered the precise issue presented on this appeal, and, relying on Codling v Paglia ( 32 N.Y.2d 330, 344), we held that the decision of Dole v Dow Chem. Co. ( 30 N.Y.2d 143) should not be retroactively applied to a pre- Dole settlement and covenant not to sue entered into between an injured party and one of two potential joint tort-feasors. Thus, Special Term improperly denied the motion to dismiss the third-party complaint and the order must be reversed. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion to dismiss the third-party complaint granted, with costs. Greenblott, J.P., Sweeney, Main, Larkin and Reynolds, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Burdick v. Pintarelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 27, 1976
52 A.D.2d 1027 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)
Case details for

Burdick v. Pintarelli

Case Details

Full title:EMILIA BURDICK, Plaintiff, v. TONY PINTARELLI et al., Defendants and…

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

Date published: May 27, 1976

Citations

52 A.D.2d 1027 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Citing Cases

Winter v. Roadking, Inc.

In fact, it has been more recently decided in the Third Department that the Dole rationale should not be…

Short v. Thygiesen

The 1974 amendment appears to be a very equitable solution of this aspect of problems arising since Dole v…