Darcey v. Greater New York Brewery, Inc.

City of New York Municipal Court

Darcey v. Greater New York Brewery, Inc.

179 Misc. 1088, 40 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1771

DecidedMarch 2, 1943

StatusPublished

This text of 179 Misc. 1088 (Darcey v. Greater New York Brewery, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Darcey v. Greater New York Brewery, Inc., 179 Misc. 1088, 40 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1771 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Keller, J.

This is a motion to dismiss a cross-complaint, interposed by defendant Drescher against defendant Greater New York Brewery, Inc., under section 264 of the Civil Practice [1089]*1089Act. Plaintiff sues both defendants for personal injuries allegedly sustained by him as a result of a collision with an automobile driven by defendant Drescher, allegedly acting as the agent and employee of defendant Greater New York Brewery, Inc. The gist of the cross-complaint by Drescher against the brewery company is that when he entered the latter’s employ it agreed with him that it would cause liability insurance to be taken out to protect him in the event any accident occurred during the course of his employment. Drescher alleges that the brewery company failed to effect such insurance and pleads that “ if judgment for damages is recovered by the plaintiff in this action against this defendant, Walter J. Drescher, then this defendant is entitled to judgment over against the defendant, Greater New York Brewery, Inc., for any amount so recovered. ’ ’

It seems to me that the cross-complaint presents a controversy independent of the matters alleged in the complaint, and not connected with or related to the cause of action pleaded in the complaint. The cross-complaint does not state a claim for indemnification as and for the reason pointed out in Weissman v. Spencer, White & Prentis, Inc. (262 App. Div. 155). That case is therefore relevant here, although a different statute is involved, for section 264 of the Civil Practice Act, like subdivision 2 of section 193 of the Civil Practice Act, permits the interposition of a cross-claim for indemnification, but not one which amounts to wholly independent litigation concerning another matter. A judgment here in plaintiff’s favor will not determine the ultimate rights of the two defendants in relation to the alleged agreement that the Greater New York Brewery, Inc., would carry liability insurance in favor of Drescher, and the latter defendant should not be permitted to import into the case his controversy with the brewery company concerning the breach by that company of its alleged contract to carry such insurance.

The motion to dismiss the cross-complaint of the defendant Drescher, against defendant Greater New York Brewery, Inc., is granted.

Order signed.

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

Keller, J.

This is a motion to dismiss a cross-complaint, interposed by defendant Drescher against defendant Greater New York Brewery, Inc., under section 264 of the Civil Practice [1089]*1089Act. Plaintiff sues both defendants for personal injuries allegedly sustained by him as a result of a collision with an automobile driven by defendant Drescher, allegedly acting as the agent and employee of defendant Greater New York Brewery, Inc. The gist of the cross-complaint by Drescher against the brewery company is that when he entered the latter’s employ it agreed with him that it would cause liability insurance to be taken out to protect him in the event any accident occurred during the course of his employment. Drescher alleges that the brewery company failed to effect such insurance and pleads that “ if judgment for damages is recovered by the plaintiff in this action against this defendant, Walter J. Drescher, then this defendant is entitled to judgment over against the defendant, Greater New York Brewery, Inc., for any amount so recovered. ’ ’

It seems to me that the cross-complaint presents a controversy independent of the matters alleged in the complaint, and not connected with or related to the cause of action pleaded in the complaint. The cross-complaint does not state a claim for indemnification as and for the reason pointed out in Weissman v. Spencer, White & Prentis, Inc. (262 App. Div. 155). That case is therefore relevant here, although a different statute is involved, for section 264 of the Civil Practice Act, like subdivision 2 of section 193 of the Civil Practice Act, permits the interposition of a cross-claim for indemnification, but not one which amounts to wholly independent litigation concerning another matter. A judgment here in plaintiff’s favor will not determine the ultimate rights of the two defendants in relation to the alleged agreement that the Greater New York Brewery, Inc., would carry liability insurance in favor of Drescher, and the latter defendant should not be permitted to import into the case his controversy with the brewery company concerning the breach by that company of its alleged contract to carry such insurance.

The motion to dismiss the cross-complaint of the defendant Drescher, against defendant Greater New York Brewery, Inc., is granted.

Order signed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 Misc. 1088, 40 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darcey-v-greater-new-york-brewery-inc-nynyccityct-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack