Herbert Charles & Company v. Jewelcor, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Herbert Charles & Company v. Jewelcor, Inc.

84 A.D.2d 740, 448 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15904

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 84 A.D.2d 740 (Herbert Charles & Company v. Jewelcor, 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

Herbert Charles & Company v. Jewelcor, Inc., 84 A.D.2d 740, 448 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Freedman, J.), entered June 2, 1980, denying motion of third-party defendant to dismiss third-party complaint, is unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion to dismiss the third-party complaint for failure to state a cause of action is granted. Even judging the third-party complaint by the lenient standards applicable to such a complaint, there is still no showing in the complaint of any basis — even a hypothetical basis — upon which the third-party defendant may be liable to the third-party plaintiff for all or .part of the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant third-party plaintiff. (See CPLR 1007; McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR, C1007:3, p 35.) Concur — Birns, J.P., Ross, Silverman, Bloom and Fein, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Freedman, J.), entered June 2, 1980, denying motion of third-party defendant to dismiss third-party complaint, is unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion to dismiss the third-party complaint for failure to state a cause of action is granted. Even judging the third-party complaint by the lenient standards applicable to such a complaint, there is still no showing in the complaint of any basis — even a hypothetical basis — upon which the third-party defendant may be liable to the third-party plaintiff for all or .part of the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant third-party plaintiff. (See CPLR 1007; McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR, C1007:3, p 35.) Concur — Birns, J.P., Ross, Silverman, Bloom and Fein, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A.D.2d 740, 448 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herbert-charles-company-v-jewelcor-inc-nyappdiv-1981.