On February 9, 2022, the Second Department issued a decision in Praxis Intl. Corp. v. Prime Alliance Group, Ltd., 2022 NY Slip Op. 00887, holding that a contribution claim survived even though a common law indemnification claim was dismissed, explaining:
Common-law indemnification is warranted where a defendant’s role in causing the plaintiff’s injury is solely passive, and thus its liability is purely vicarious. Here, since the complaint did not allege any basis upon which Praxis could be held vicariously liable for any negligence of any of the defendants, the Supreme Court properly determined that the second cause of action, seeking common-law indemnification, was subject to dismissal.
. . .
However, the Supreme Court erred in directing dismissal of the first cause of action, which seeks contribution. Although contribution is not available where the damages sought are exclusively for breach of contract, here, a cause of action was asserted against Praxis alleging negligence, and thus, sounding in tort. Accordingly, that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the first cause of action should have been denied.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).