Calise v. Heartland Medical Services, P.C.
18 Misc. 3d 332 (2007)
Rule of Law:
When a plaintiff voluntarily discontinues claims against one defendant without monetary consideration, a non-released codefendant's cross-claims for contribution and indemnification against the released defendant are not automatically extinguished and may be preserved by dismissing them without prejudice, allowing the non-released defendant to later implead the released defendant if necessary.
Facts:
- On September 25, 2003, Ralph Calise sustained injuries allegedly due to the defendants' failure to diagnose his appendicitis.
- Plaintiff Ralph Calise agreed to voluntarily discontinue all claims, with prejudice, against defendant Heartland Medical Services, EC.
- Codefendant Claire Bornstein, EA, refused to sign the stipulation of discontinuance.
- Bornstein contended that recent amendments to General Obligations Law § 15-108 restrained her ability to release Heartland from cross-claims for contribution/indemnification.
- Bornstein feared that if Heartland was released, any percentage of fault attributed to Heartland by a jury would unfairly shift the burden of the entire judgment onto her.
- The recent amendment to General Obligations Law § 15-108 (d) defines a 'release' or 'covenant not to sue' for its purposes as requiring monetary consideration greater than one dollar, substantial termination of the dispute, and provision prior to judgment.
Procedural Posture:
- On June 8, 2004, plaintiff Ralph Calise commenced an action for medical malpractice by filing a summons and complaint.
- Issue was joined on July 28, 2004.
- After discovery was complete, plaintiff Ralph Calise agreed to voluntarily discontinue all claims, with prejudice, against defendant Heartland Medical Services, EC.
- Codefendant Claire Bornstein, EA, refused to sign the stipulation of discontinuance.
- Defendant Heartland Medical Services moved to dismiss the cross-claims of defendant Claire Bornstein, EA, pursuant to CPLR 3211(b).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's voluntary discontinuance of claims against one defendant, without monetary consideration, automatically extinguish a non-released codefendant's cross-claims for contribution and indemnification against the released defendant under the recently amended General Obligations Law § 15-108?
Opinions:
Majority - Judith N. McMahon, J.
No, a plaintiff's voluntary discontinuance of claims against one defendant does not automatically extinguish a non-released codefendant's cross-claims for contribution and indemnification against the released defendant under General Obligations Law § 15-108, because the non-released codefendant retains the right to implead the released party if those cross-claims are dismissed without prejudice. The court reasoned that the purpose of the General Obligations Law § 15-108 amendment is to encourage plaintiffs to discontinue actions against defendants with no liability, not to unfairly shift liability to non-released codefendants. Although the amendment did not explicitly resolve the issue of pre-existing cross-claims, such claims can be managed by dismissing them without prejudice. This allows the non-released codefendant to implead the released codefendant back into the case, pursuant to CPLR 1007, to pursue their contribution/indemnification claims if the released codefendant is later found to be at fault. This mechanism ensures that the non-released defendant is not unfairly burdened with the entire judgment.
Analysis:
This case clarifies a critical procedural mechanism for preserving cross-claims for contribution and indemnification when a plaintiff voluntarily discontinues claims against one defendant. It prevents the unintended consequence of General Obligations Law § 15-108 amendments from unfairly shifting liability to remaining codefendants. By affirming the right to dismiss cross-claims without prejudice and allowing subsequent impleader under CPLR 1007, the court ensures that the burden of judgment remains proportional to fault, promoting fairness among tortfeasors. This decision provides important guidance for defense counsel in multiparty litigation involving voluntary discontinuances.
