8562-8562A. DANIEL HERNANDEZ plf-res, v. TEN TEN COMPANY, ETC. Defendants-res-ap, PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES INCORPORATED Defendants-Appellants-res, USA ILLUMINATION, INC., def — THE 1010 COMPANY, L.P., ETC. Third-Party Plaintiffs-res-ap, v. PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES INCORPORATED, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant-res — SCHMERGEL CONSTRUCTION CORP., SECOND THIRD-PARTY Plaintiff-res-ap, v. ROLAND’S ELECTRIC, SECOND THIRD-PARTY Defendant-Appellant-res — Havkins Rosenfeld Ritzert & Varriale, LLP, Mineola (Gail L. Ritzert of counsel), for Roland’s Electric, appellant-res — Baxter Smith & Shapiro, P.C., Hicksville (Dennis S. Heffernan of counsel), for Schmergel Construction Corp., appellant-respondent/res-res — O’Connor, O’Connor, Hintz & Deveney, LLP, Melville (Eileen M. Baumgartner of counsel), for Prudential Securities Incorporated, appellant-res — DeCicco, Gibbons & McNamara, P.C., New York (Joseph T. Gibbons of counsel), for Ten Ten Company and 1010 Company, respondentsap — Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman, P.C., New York (Michael T. Altman of counsel), for res — Amended judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered July 13, 2011, after a jury trial, awarding plaintiffs damages, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered January 6, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the respective motions of defendant/thirdparty defendant Prudential Securities Incorporated, defendant/third-party plaintiff Ten Ten Company, and second third-party defendant Roland’s Electric for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on liability and damages, granted Prudential’s motion for judgment on its cross claims for common-law and contractual indemnification against Roland’s, denied Prudential’s motion for a posttrial hearing on attorneys’ fees, granted defendant/second third-party plaintiff Schmergel Construction Corp.’s motion for judgment on its second third-party claims for common-law and contractual indemnification against Roland’s, denied Ten Ten’s motion for judgment on its cross claim for common-law indemnification against Roland’s and third-party claim for contractual indemnification against Prudential, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting Ten Ten’s motion, adding a decretal paragraph to the amended judgment awarding Prudential and Schmergel contractual and common-law indemnification against Roland’s, granting Prudential’s motion for a posttrial hearing on attorneys’ fees and remitting the matter to the Supreme Court for such a hearing, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeal from aforesaid order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.
The amended judgment awarding damages and interest against Ten Ten, Schmergel and Prudential is valid and enforceable, even though the verdict sheet did not indicate a finding of liability against those defendants. The defendants, conceding that they would be vicariously liable upon a finding of Roland’s negligence (see Rizzuto v. L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 349-350 [1998]), urged the court to leave their names off the verdict sheet. Further, the court instructed the jury that if it found Roland’s liable, then the defendants would be liable, and those instructions were noted in the amended judgment.
