Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 04-15-2014

Case Style: Matthew Isabella v. Michael W. Koubek

Case Number: 12-2905-cv

Judge: Lohier

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on appeal from the Northern District of New York (Erie County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: GLENN A. KAMINSKA (Nicholas M. Cardascia, on the brief), Ahmuty, Demers &
McManus, Albertson, NY, for Third Party Plaintiffs‐Appellees.

Defendant's Attorney: ARTHUR J. SIEGEL, Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Albany, NY, for Third Party
Defendant‐Appellant.

Description: 26 This case arises from a car accident in New York. Roberta Oldenborg,
27 driving a car owned by her husband, Michael Koubek, collided with a vehicle
28 driven by Doris Hallock and owned by her husband, Peter Hallock. Koubek
29 appealed from the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern
30 District of New York (Sharpe, C.J.) denying in relevant part his motion for
-2-
1 summary judgment and allowing the Hallocks to seek contribution and
2 indemnification from him as the owner of the vehicle driven by Oldenborg.
3 Isabella v. Hallock, No. 1:09‐cv‐123(GLS\DRH), 2011 WL 1871109 (N.D.N.Y. May
4 16, 2011). We assume familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
5 history of this case, which are set forth in our prior opinion filed on August 13,
6 2013. Isabella v. Koubek, 733 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2013).
7 On appeal, Koubek disputed the Hallocks’ ability to bring an action for
8 contribution against him as the car owner when a direct cause of action against
9 the driver, Oldenborg, would be prohibited by the exclusive remedy provisions
10 of New York’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 29(6). In our prior opinion, we
11 certified the following question to the New York Court of Appeals:
12 Whether a defendant may pursue a third‐party contribution claim
13 under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 against the owner of
14 a vehicle, where the vehicle driver’s negligence was a substantial
15 factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries, but the driver is protected
16 from suit by the exclusive remedy provisions of New York Workers’
17 Compensation Law § 29(6)?
18
19 Id. at 392.
20 In an opinion filed on March 27, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals
21 answered the certified question in the negative, holding that “a defendant may
22 not pursue a third‐party contribution claim under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388
-3-
against a vehicle
1 owner where the driver’s negligence was a cause of the
2 plaintiff’s injuries, but the driver is insulated from a lawsuit under Workers’
3 Compensation Law § 29 (6).” Isabella v. Koubek, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 02100, at 12,
4 2014 WL 1239056, at *7. The ruling of the New York Court of Appeals regarding
5 New York law resolves the sole issue presented in this case and requires that
6 Koubek’s motion for summary judgment be granted.

Outcome: 7 For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the judgment of the District Court
8 and REMAND with instructions to dismiss the Hallocks’ claims against Koubek
9 and enter judgment in Koubek’s favor. We thank the New York Court of
10 Appeals for its assistance in resolving this question of New York law.

-4-

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: