Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Local Rule 1.3. 33 . Murray, 583 F.3d at 178 (citing Ramey v. District 141, Int'l Assn of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 378 F.3d 269, 282-83 (2d Cir.2004)). 34 . National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. L.E. Myers Co. Grp., 937 F.Supp. 276, 280-81 (S.D.N.Y.1996). 35 . Mwray, 583 F.3d at 178 (quoting Lamborn, 873 F.2d at 531) (quotation marks omitted). 36 . Defendants raise only Canon 9 in their Opposition. See Def. Opp. at 8. It is apparent from Defendants’ conflict-of-interest discussion that Rule 1.7 and Canon 5 are also relevant. 37 . Hempstead Video, Inc., 409 F.3d at 132. 38 . New York Code of Prof. Resp., Preliminary Statement, reprinted in N.Y. Jud. Law App. 39 . Board of Ed. of City of New York v. Nyquist, 590 F.2d 1241 D.2d 487, 597 N.Y.S.2d 34, 34 (1st Dep’t 1993) (<HOLDING>); Hansen v. Brognano, 137 A.D.2d 880, 524 
 Holding statements: (A) holding original tortfeasor had no right to indemnification because claim properly was for contribution (B) holding claims against attorney for legal malpractice must be asserted by attorneys actual client absent limited exception (C) holding that attorneys sued for malpractice were entitled to assert thirdparty complaint for contribution and indemnification against subsequent attorney hired by client (D) holding contribution claim against attorney not contrary to illinois public policy (E) holding that the parties purchase agreement did not require a showing of prejudice for plaintiff to assert that defendant waived its claim for indemnification
Output (English): holding original tortfeasor had no right to indemnification because claim properly was for contribution