## Facts

- Two automobiles collided on a roadway near a highway construction area in Queens County.
- Plaintiffs were passengers in one or the other vehicle and sued for personal injuries arising from the collision.
- One vehicle was owned and operated by defendant Edward Embro, Jr.; plaintiff Hans Henning Bundt was a passenger in Embro’s car.
- The other vehicle was operated by defendant Aldo Di Belardino, owned by defendant Wallachs Auto Rental Inc., and leased to defendant G.B.I., Inc.; the Mondini plaintiffs and Enrica Ferrario were passengers in that car.
- Plaintiffs alleged that the drivers and the owner/lessee defendants were negligent in the operation and control of the vehicles.
- Plaintiffs also sued defendant Peckham Road Corporation, a highway contractor working near the accident site, alleging its work negligently obstructed the view of a stop sign that Embro’s car passed shortly before the collision.
- While the Supreme Court actions were pending, certain plaintiffs (including Bundt and members of the Mondini group and Ferrario) brought an action against the State of New York in the Court of Claims for the same accident and injuries.
- The Court of Claims awarded money judgments to those plaintiffs, and the judgments were satisfied (paid).

## Issues

1. Does satisfaction of a Court of Claims judgment against the State of New York for the same accident and injuries discharge other alleged joint tortfeasors, so that it may be pleaded as an affirmative defense of discharge and satisfaction?
2. Should the defendants in the Supreme Court actions be granted leave to amend their answers to add that affirmative defense based on the satisfied Court of Claims judgments?

## Decision

- The court granted the moving defendants leave to amend their answers to interpose the affirmative defense of discharge and satisfaction.
- The court accepted the rule that satisfaction of a judgment against one joint tortfeasor discharges the others as to the same injury, and held the defendants could assert that rule based on the satisfied Court of Claims judgments.
- The court treated the satisfied Court of Claims recovery as legally capable of operating as a discharge, assuming the State and the remaining defendants are joint tortfeasors responsible for the same injuries.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff seeking recovery for a single, indivisible injury is entitled to only one satisfaction; once full satisfaction is obtained, additional recovery for the same harm is not permitted.
- When multiple actors are alleged to be joint tortfeasors whose combined negligence caused the same injury, satisfaction of a judgment against one may discharge the others from liability for that injury.
- Discharge and satisfaction is an affirmative defense that may be pleaded where the plaintiff has already collected a satisfied judgment for the same injuries.
- Leave to amend pleadings may be granted where the proposed defense is based on events occurring after the original pleading and the amendment is sought so the case may be decided on the merits of the actual dispute.

## Conclusion

Because certain plaintiffs had already obtained and satisfied Court of Claims judgments against the State of New York for the same accident and injuries, the Supreme Court permitted the remaining defendants to amend their answers to assert discharge and satisfaction, allowing them to argue that the prior satisfied judgments bar further recovery against other alleged joint tortfeasors for the same injuries.


Bundt v. Embro, 265 N.Y.S.2d 872, 48 Misc. 2d 802 (1965)