Central Budget Corp. v. Perdigon

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Central Budget Corp. v. Perdigon

32 Misc. 2d 655, 228 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3450

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 2, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 Misc. 2d 655 (Central Budget Corp. v. Perdigon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Central Budget Corp. v. Perdigon, 32 Misc. 2d 655, 228 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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.

[656]*656The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion granted.

Concur — Hecht, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

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.

[656]*656The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion granted.

Concur — Hecht, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Misc. 2d 655, 228 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-budget-corp-v-perdigon-nyappterm-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack