Pugliese v. Paneorama Italian Bakery Corp.
Opinion of the Court
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County
Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that the third-party defendant is not aggrieved by the judgment (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the motion is denied, the third-party complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial on the issue of common-law indemnification, with costs to abide the event.
The Supreme Court erred in dismissing the third-party complaint for common-law indemnification. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant third-party plaintiff, there is a rational basis upon which the jury could have found that the injured plaintiff was supervised and controlled by his employer, the third-party defendant, on the date of the accident (see, Merkinger v Jo-Mi Corp., 270 AD2d 236). Therefore, the third-party complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial on the issue of common-law indemnification.
We note that the award of damages to the injured plaintiff for past lost earnings and future medical expenses did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]). Bracken, P. J., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.