Case Name: Investors Insurance Company of America, Respondent, v. Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Gama-Baldwin, Incorporated, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1996-10-24
Citations: 232 A.D.2d 285
Docket Number: 
Parties: Investors Insurance Company of America, Respondent, v Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Gama-Baldwin, Incorporated, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 232
Pages: 285–286

Head Matter:
Investors Insurance Company of America, Respondent, v Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Gama-Baldwin, Incorporated, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
[648 NYS2d 913]

Opinion:
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered on or about February 6, 1996, which granted third-party defendant's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The first three causes of action of the third-party complaint, sounding in professional malpractice, breach of contract and negligence, are barred by the applicable Statutes of Limitations (see, CPLR 213, 214). Indeed, the limitations period began to run in February 1986, when third-party defendant allegedly failed to notify defendant and third-party plaintiff that a claim had been filed against the insured. The third-party action was commenced more than eight years later. There is no basis for third-party plaintiff's present contention that the first three causes of action are essentially claims sounding in contribution.
As to the fourth cause of action of the third-party complaint seeking indemnification, the third-party plaintiff has failed to demonstrate an independent right of recovery for third-party defendant's breach of a duty, based upon either contract or implied obligation, owed to plaintiff or itself. Accordingly, the fourth cause of action fails to state a cognizable claim (see, Kemron Envtl. Servs. v Environmental Compliance, 184 AD2d 755). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Ross and Williams, JJ.