General
Regency Savings Bank, Plaintiff, v. Norman Brodsky, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Third-Party Defendants; Mintz & Fraade, P. C., Formerly Known as Mintz, Fraade & Zeiger, et al., Third-Party Defendants and Fourth-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Harvey Haber, Fourth-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Fourth-Party Defendants; Regency Savings Bank, Plaintiff, v. Norman Brodsky, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Third-Party Defendants; Mintz & Fraade, P. C., Formerly Known as Mintz, Fraade & Zeiger, et al., Third-Party Defendants and Fourth-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Norman Leben, Fourth-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Fourth-Party Defendants
221 A.D.2d 180633 N.Y.S.2d 38·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1995·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Regency Savings Bank, Plaintiff, v Norman Brodsky, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Third-Party Defendants. Mintz & Fraade, P. C., Formerly Known as Mintz, Fraade & Zeiger, et al., Third-Party Defendants and Fourth-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v Harvey Haber, Fourth-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Fourth-Party Defendants. Regency Savings Bank, Plaintiff, v Norman Brodsky, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Third-Party Defendants. Mintz & Fraade, P. C., Formerly Known as Mintz, Fraade & Zeiger, et al., Third-Party Defendants and Fourth-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v Norman Leben, Fourth-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Fourth-Party Defendants.
[633 NYS2d 38]
[MAJORITY]
—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered on or about January 18,1994 and September 1, 1994, which, inter alia, respectively, denied fourth-party defendant-appellant Leben’s motion to dismiss the fourth-party complaint as against him for failure to state a cause of action, and which upon reargument reinstated the fourth-party complaint against fourth-party defendant-appellant Harvey Haber, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
While the fourth-party plaintiffs may not seek indemnification for the fraud, misrepresentation, and failure to exercise due diligence alleged in the third-party complaint (Glaser v Fortunoffof Westbury Corp., 71 NY2d 643, 646-647), we sustain the fourth-party complaint as against appellants since the fifth and sixth causes of action thereof, liberally construed, are sufficient to state causes of action for contribution (see, Taft v Shaffer Trucking, 52 AD2d 255; Trustees of Columbia Univ. v Mitchell/Giurgola Assocs., 109 AD2d 449). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.