MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.
Memorandum: In these consolidated personal injury actions, defendant Moore Munger, Inc. (Moore Munger) appeals from an order granting the motion of defendants Marita Car Rental, Inc., doing business as Budget Rent A Car Corporation, doing business as Budget Rent A Car of Buffalo, and Marita Car Rentals Fleet, Inc. (Marita), for entry of a conditional order on Marita's cross claims for common-law indemnification against defendant Paul S. Veillette and his employer, Moore Munger. By that order, Supreme Court required Veillette and Moore Munger to indemnify Marita for any accident-related payments that Marita must make to plaintiffs in excess of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per occurrence, the minimum coverage required by statute (hereinafter, $50,000). Plaintiffs were injured when their vehicle collided with a vehicle driven by Veillette in the course of his employment, which vehicle had been rented by Veillette from Marita.
Contrary to the contention of Moore Munger, there is a legal basis for Marita, as owner of the vehicle, to interpose cross claims directly against Moore Munger seeking common-law indemnification from it as the employer of the tortfeasor-driver ( see Dairylea Coop. v. Rossal, 64 N.Y.2d 1, 8; Hertz Corp. v. Dahill Moving Stor. Co., 79 A.D.2d 589, affd 54 N.Y.2d 619; Denton Leasing Corp. v. Breezy Point Surf Club, 133 A.D.2d 95, 96; Interstate Motor Frgt. Sys. v. Michigan Mut. Liab. Co., 87 A.D.2d 715, lv denied 57 N.Y.2d 602; see also Morris v. Snappy Car Rental, 189 A.D.2d 115, 121, affd 84 N.Y.2d 21).
Contrary to Moore Munger's further contention, the court properly granted Marita's motion for a conditional order of indemnification. Given the express limitation of insurance coverage in the rental agreement to the amount of $50,000 and the express requirement therein that Veillette indemnify Marita for liabilities in excess of $50,000, Veillette lacks any coverage under Marita's insurance policies beyond $50,000. Consequently, the antisubrogation rule does not preclude Marita from obtaining indemnification from Veillette for liabilities in excess of $50,000 ( see generally North Star Reins. Corp. v. Continental Ins. Co., 82 N.Y.2d 281, 294-295; Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v. Austin Powder Co., 68 N.Y.2d 465, 470-472). We see no basis for refusing to enforce the express terms of the rental agreement, and there is no basis for invalidating the $50,000 limitation on insurance coverage by the rental company ( see ELRAC, Inc. v. Masara, 96 N.Y.2d 847, 849; ELRAC, Inc. v. Ward, 96 N.Y.2d 58, 73-74, rearg denied 96 N.Y.2d 855). Nor is there any question concerning the validity of the requirement that Veillette indemnify the rental company for liabilities in excess of $50,000 ( see Masara, 96 N.Y.2d at 849; Ward, 96 N.Y.2d at 77-78). Under the circumstances, the antisubrogation rule precludes Marita from obtaining indemnification from Veillette and Moore Munger only to the extent of the $50,000 coverage mandated by statute and actually provided by Marita to Veillette pursuant to the rental agreement ( see Ward, 96 N.Y.2d at 77). However, "antisubrogation principles do not bar [Marita] from seeking indemnification for amounts exceeding" $50,000 ( id. at 78).