Henderson v. Park Central Motors Service, Inc.

225 A.D. 788
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 15, 1929
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 225 A.D. 788 (Henderson v. Park Central Motors Service, Inc.) 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
Henderson v. Park Central Motors Service, Inc., 225 A.D. 788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The Special Term was in error in holding that the fact that the plaintiff is not the real party in interest does not constitute a defense. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 210; Spooner v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 115 N. Y. 22; Wittner v. Burr Avenue Development Corporation, 222 App. Div. 285.) However, to establish such defense in this case it should be made to appear that the adjustment made by the plaintiff with the insurance company was at least equal to the amount of the claim asserted by the plaintiff against the defendant. From all that appears from the allegations of the defense, the plaintiff may have adjusted his claim with the insurance company for less than $6,000. The order appealed from should, therefore, be modified by striking out the words: “ In which said amended answer the subject-matter of the defendant’s alleged defense may be set up as an objection but not as a defense that might defeat recovery,” and as so modified affirmed, without costs, with leave to the defendant to serve an amended answer within ten days after service of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, upon payment of the costs awarded to the plaintiff by the order appealed from. Present — Dowling, P. J., Finch, McAvoy, Martin and O’Malley, JJ. Order modified as indicated in opinion and as so modified affirmed, without costs, with leave to the defendant to serve an amended answer within ten days from service of order upon payment of the costs awarded to the plaintiff by the order appealed from.

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

Related

Feeter v. Van Scott Bros.
74 Misc. 2d 388 (New York Supreme Court, 1973)
Skinner v. Klein
24 A.D.2d 433 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1965)
Katz v. Hotel Murida, Inc.
194 Misc. 741 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1949)
Par-X Uniform Service Corp. v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank
268 A.D. 699 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1945)
Molnar v. Westchester Fire Insurance
153 Misc. 38 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1934)
McGinn v. New York & Queens Electric Light & Power Co.
240 A.D. 998 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1933)
Reddington v. Elco Merchandizing Corp.
236 A.D. 64 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1932)
Henderson v. Park Central Motors Service, Inc.
138 Misc. 183 (New York Supreme Court, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
225 A.D. 788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-park-central-motors-service-inc-nyappdiv-1929.