DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal by the defendant Douglas M. Seaton is dismissed, as that defendant is not aggrieved by the order appealed from (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
It is undisputed that the defendant Douglas M. Seaton was involved in a motor vehicle accident while operating a vehicle rented from the defendant ELRAC, Inc., d/b/a Enterprise Rent-A-Car (hereinafter ELRAC), by the third-party defendant Leslie Seaton. The plaintiff, a pedestrian, allegedly sustained personal injuries as a result of the accident. A rental agreement between ELRAC and Leslie Seaton provided that Leslie Seaton, as lessee of the rental vehicle, would indemnify ELRAC for all claims arising out of the use of the rental vehicle. Therefore, ELRAC is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of contractual indemnity (see, ELRAC, Inc. v. Ward, 266 A.D.2d 500 [2d Dept., Nov. 29, 1999]; Cuthbert v. Pederson, 266 A.D.2d 255 [2d Dept., Nov. 8, 1999]; ELRAC, Inc. v. Beckford, 250 A.D.2d 725 ; ELRAC, Inc. v. Rudel, 233 A.D.2d 417 ). Leslie Seaton's contention that ELRAC, as a self-insurer, is required to provide at least the minimum insurance coverage pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 and Morris v. Snappy Car Rental ( 84 N.Y.2d 21 ) is without merit. Because ELRAC seeks indemnification for sums it may become obligated to pay to the plaintiff, the policy underlying Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 is not undercut by enforcement of the indemnification clause (see, Morris v. Snappy Car Rental, supra, at 27; Cuthbert v. Pederson, supra).
Leslie Seaton's remaining contentions are without merit.
SULLIVAN, J.P., S. MILLER, FRIEDMANN, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.