A7342   Weinstein (MS)   Same as S 3574  VOLKER  
Office of Court Administration (Internal # 93 - 2001)
Civil Practice Law and Rules
TITLE....Permits a plaintiff to recover directly against a third party defendant found to be liable to the defendant
03/21/01 referred to judiciary
04/18/01 reported
04/19/01 advanced to third reading cal.270
01/09/02 referred to judiciary
04/16/02 reported
04/18/02 advanced to third reading cal.254


WEINSTEIN, SEDDIO, ORTIZ; M-S: Boyland, Brennan, Clark, Cook, Davis, Dinowitz, Galef, Glick, Gottfried, Green, Kaufman, Klein, Lafayette, Lavelle, Matusow, Mayersohn, Millman, Sanders, Sidikman
Add S1405, CPLR
Permits a plaintiff to recover directly against a third party defendant found to be liable to the defendant, where the latter is insolvent.
Office of Court Administration

RETRIEVE BILL

 
                STATE OF NEW YORK
       ________________________________________________________________________
 
                                         7342
 
                              2001-2002 Regular Sessions
 
                   IN ASSEMBLY
 
                                    March 21, 2001
                                      ___________
 
       Introduced by M. of A. WEINSTEIN, SEDDIO, ORTIZ -- Multi-Sponsored by --
         M.  of A. BOYLAND, BRENNAN, CLARK, COOK, DINOWITZ, GALEF, GLICK, GOTT-
         FRIED, GREEN, KAUFMAN, KLEIN, LAFAYETTE,  LAVELLE,  MILLMAN,  SANDERS,
         SIDIKMAN -- (at request of the Office of Court Administration) -- read
         once and referred to the Committee on Judiciary
 
       AN ACT to amend the civil practice law and rules, in relation to permit-
         ting  a  plaintiff  in  a  tort  case to recover against a third party
         defendant in certain cases when the third party plaintiff is insolvent
 
         The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and  Assem-
       bly, do enact as follows:
 
    1    Section 1. The civil practice law and rules is amended by adding a new
    2  section 1405 to read as follows:
    3    §  1405.  Permitting  plaintiff  to  obtain  an indirect tort recovery
    4  against a third party defendant in  certain  cases.  Either  a  judgment
    5  creditor or a judgment debtor may recover on a judgment for contribution
    6  or  indemnification regardless of whether the judgment debtor has satis-
    7  fied the underlying judgment for which contribution  or  indemnification
    8  is  sought.  Where  such underlying judgment is unsatisfied, any payment
    9  made by the contributing or indemnifying party shall be made directly to
   10  the judgment creditor.
   11    § 2. This act shall take effect on  the  first  day  of  January  next
   12  succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law, and shall apply
   13  to actions commenced on or after such date.
 
 
 
        EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                             [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                                  LBD10208-02-1

NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION
submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(e)
RETRIEVE BILL
 
BILL NUMBER: A7342
 
SPONSOR: Weinstein (MS)
  TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the civil practice law and rules, in relation to permitting a plaintiff in a tort case to recover against a third party defendant in certain cases when the third party plaintiff is insolvent This is one of a series of measures being introduced at the request of the Chief Administrative Judge on the recommendation of his Advisory Committee on Civil Practice. It would add a new CPLR 1405 expressly to permit a plaintiff in a tort case to recover directly against a third- party defendant found liable to the defendant/third-party plaintiff, where the latter is insolvent. We propose this measure to clarify New York law, which, in the caselaw, appears somewhat uncertain at this time. See, Klinger v. Dudley, 41 NY2d 362 (1977); Feldman v. NYC Health and Hospitals Corp., 56 NY2d 1011 (1982); Reich v. Manhattan Boiler & Equipment Corp., 91 NY2d 772 (1998).{1} Our Committee believes that plaintiff's recovery of a judgment that ultimately comes from a third-party defendant should not depend on the fortuity of the solvency of the third-party plaintiff. Accordingly, this measure would allow plaintiff to recover on a judgment for contrib- ution against the third-party defendant, whether or not the defendant/third-party plaintiff has satisfied the underlying judgment for which contribution or indemnification is sought. Thus, in the case where a defendant/third-party plaintiff, directly liable to the plain- tiff, is insolvent and is unable to pay the judgment, the plaintiff will recover that portion of the judgment owed by the third-party defendant from that party directly. Importantly, this measure would not alter in any way the substantive law of workers' compensation. The 1996 Omnibus Workers' Compensation Reform Act already limits claims for contribution and indemnification against an employer to only those cases involving "grave injuries." In cases where there are not grave injuries, the employer is not liable as a matter of substantive law, and therefore this measure would not affect such employers at all.{2} This measure, which would have no fiscal impact on the State, would take effect on the first day of January next succeeding the date on which it shall have become law, and shall apply only to actions commenced on or after that date.   1999-00 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: OCA 2000-160 Assembly 10422 (Weinstein, Ortiz)   3rd Reading {1} The first of these cases, Klinger, barred a recovery by a plaintiff against a third-party defendant found liable for a portion of the damages owed plaintiff by the original defendant, where the original defendant was insolvent. The court required the judgment, or at least the original defendant's proportionate share, to be paid in full before this could happen. Several years later, however, the Feldman court permitted a circumventive loan to get around the problem where the third-party defendant was not an employer. More recently, in Reich, the court held such a loan device to be ineffective when the third-party defendant was an employer, stating that such a loan agreement would conflict with public policy considerations that mandate exclusivity of the workers' compensation remedy. {2} By contrast, in those cases involving grave injury, the Legislature has made a policy determination that the employer should be subject to potential third-party liability. This measure would help give effect to that determination.