Dinino v. D.A.T. Construction Corp.Dinino v. D.A.T. Construction Corp.
—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about April 14, 1999, which granted plaintiffs’ post-trial motion to the extent of setting aside a jury verdict in defendants’ favor and directing a new trial, and denied defendants’ cross motion for a directed verdict upon their claims for contractual and common-law indemnification against defendants in the third-party actions, Ambassador Construction Co. and Irvess Construction Corp., unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendants’ cross motion to the extent of directing a conditional judgment in their favor upon their claims against Ambassador for contractual indemnification, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Defendants are entitled to a conditional judgment on their claim for contractual indemnification against defendant Ambassador in the third-party action since there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the direct defendants (see, Buccini v 1568 Broadway Assocs.,