Arroway v. De Franco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arroway v. De Franco

260 A.D. 988, 23 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5705

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 8, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D. 988 (Arroway v. De Franco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arroway v. De Franco, 260 A.D. 988, 23 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motions granted, without costs. Memorandum: The plaintiffs having brought action against the three defendants on the theory that the defendant Guyle is liable for the acts of the codefendants, it is in the interest of justice that multiplicity of suits be avoided by one trial of the issues raised by the complaints and the answers and the cross-complaints herein, and for that reason the order dismissing the cross-complaints should be reversed, and the motion to bring the codefendants in as defendants to such cross-complaints be granted. All concur. (One order denies in each action a motion by defendant Guyle for issuance of a supplemental summons directed to defendants De Franco and Yell, and the other order grants a motion by said defendants to dismiss the cross-complaints contained in the answers of defendant Guyle.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Orders reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motions granted, without costs. Memorandum: The plaintiffs having brought action against the three defendants on the theory that the defendant Guyle is liable for the acts of the codefendants, it is in the interest of justice that multiplicity of suits be avoided by one trial of the issues raised by the complaints and the answers and the cross-complaints herein, and for that reason the order dismissing the cross-complaints should be reversed, and the motion to bring the codefendants in as defendants to such cross-complaints be granted. All concur. (One order denies in each action a motion by defendant Guyle for issuance of a supplemental summons directed to defendants De Franco and Yell, and the other order grants a motion by said defendants to dismiss the cross-complaints contained in the answers of defendant Guyle.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D. 988, 23 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arroway-v-de-franco-nyappdiv-1940.