From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Central Budget Corp. v. Perdigon

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Feb 2, 1961
32 Misc. 2d 655 (N.Y. App. Term 1961)

Opinion

February 2, 1961

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, BERNARD WEISS, J.

Eugene Brooks for appellant.

Moses C. Weinman for respondents.


The purchasers of a used car, being sued by a finance company for the balance due on a conditional sales contract, served a third-party complaint on the dealer who sold the car and assigned the sales contract to the plaintiff. The matters set forth in such third-party complaint would, if established, either negate any liability of the third-party plaintiffs to the original plaintiff or present grounds for an independent action against the third-party defendant without showing any liability of such party for any part of the claim set forth in the original action. Under such circumstances, the third-party complaint fails to meet the requirements of section 193-a of the Civil Practice Act (see 2 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, p. 607) and should have been dismissed.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion granted.

Concur — HECHT, J.P., AURELIO and TILZER, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Central Budget Corp. v. Perdigon

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Feb 2, 1961
32 Misc. 2d 655 (N.Y. App. Term 1961)
Case details for

Central Budget Corp. v. Perdigon

Case Details

Full title:CENTRAL BUDGET CORP., Plaintiff, v. JAIME PERDIGON et al., Defendants and…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Feb 2, 1961

Citations

32 Misc. 2d 655 (N.Y. App. Term 1961)
228 N.Y.S.2d 311

Citing Cases

Ellenberg v. Sydharv Realty Corp.

It has been held that where the matter set forth in the third-party complaint would, if established,…