Bray v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bray v. Johnson

284 A.D. 904, 134 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4015

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D. 904 (Bray v. Johnson) 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

Bray v. Johnson, 284 A.D. 904, 134 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4015 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

-Order denying appellant’s motion for contribution pursuant to section 211-a of the Civil Practice Act reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs. Accepting as true the respondent’s claim of an agreement between him and plaintiffs to limit the extent of his liability if any were found by the jury, such agreement, made without appellant’s knowledge or consent, could not defeat its right to contribution. Judgment was entered against respondent and appellant, and the latter paid more than its pro rata share thereof. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 211-a; cf. Bee v. Spencer, 233 App. Div. 217.) The respondent presented no defense to appellant’s claim, and no reason for a plenary action is disclosed. (Cf. Neenan v. Woodside Astoria Transp. Co., 261 N. Y. 159.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur.

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

-Order denying appellant’s motion for contribution pursuant to section 211-a of the Civil Practice Act reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs. Accepting as true the respondent’s claim of an agreement between him and plaintiffs to limit the extent of his liability if any were found by the jury, such agreement, made without appellant’s knowledge or consent, could not defeat its right to contribution. Judgment was entered against respondent and appellant, and the latter paid more than its pro rata share thereof. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 211-a; cf. Bee v. Spencer, 233 App. Div. 217.) The respondent presented no defense to appellant’s claim, and no reason for a plenary action is disclosed. (Cf. Neenan v. Woodside Astoria Transp. Co., 261 N. Y. 159.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D. 904, 134 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bray-v-johnson-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack