Indursky v. Indursky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Indursky v. Indursky

7 A.D.2d 709, 180 N.Y.S.2d 61, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4051

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.2d 709 (Indursky v. Indursky) 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

Indursky v. Indursky, 7 A.D.2d 709, 180 N.Y.S.2d 61, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4051 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

As parties signatory to the agreement sued upon, defendant, his brother and sister undertook jointly to provide for plaintiff’s support. There are no terms indicating an intention that liability be joint and several. As joint obligors united in interest, they must all be joined as parties defendant (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 193, 194). The order appealed from should be modified only to the extent of directing plaintiff to serve an amended pleading adding the two additional parties defendant to the second cause of action (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 102). Order unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of directing plaintiff to serve an amended pleading adding Harold Indursky and Ida Indursky Baker as eodefendents to the second cause of action, with costs to the appellant. Settle order. Concur — Botein, P. J., Yalente, McNally, Stevens and Bergan, JJ.

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

As parties signatory to the agreement sued upon, defendant, his brother and sister undertook jointly to provide for plaintiff’s support. There are no terms indicating an intention that liability be joint and several. As joint obligors united in interest, they must all be joined as parties defendant (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 193, 194). The order appealed from should be modified only to the extent of directing plaintiff to serve an amended pleading adding the two additional parties defendant to the second cause of action (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 102). Order unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of directing plaintiff to serve an amended pleading adding Harold Indursky and Ida Indursky Baker as eodefendents to the second cause of action, with costs to the appellant. Settle order. Concur — Botein, P. J., Yalente, McNally, Stevens and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 709, 180 N.Y.S.2d 61, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/indursky-v-indursky-nyappdiv-1958.