Joseph v. R. & M. Embroidery Co.

New York Supreme Court

Joseph v. R. & M. Embroidery Co.

21 Misc. 2d 392, 195 N.Y.S.2d 736, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2718

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 2, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 Misc. 2d 392 (Joseph v. R. & M. Embroidery Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joseph v. R. & M. Embroidery Co., 21 Misc. 2d 392, 195 N.Y.S.2d 736, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2718 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Francis X. Conlon, J.

The third-party defendant moves for dismissal of the third-party complaint upon the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and that it is not properly interposed in this action.

The third-party plaintiffs allege that, by virtue of certain transactions and grievances, they had reached a settlement with the defendant. The latter was, among other things, to redeliver to the third-party plaintiffs certain notes which defendant failed to do. The action of the plaintiffs against the defendant is upon four of those notes totaling $600. The third-party plaintiffs seek to recover over the sum of $600 or, in the alternative, a larger sum of money representing the principal amount of the notes which were not returned by the defendant. It is the contention of the third-party defendant that by seeking a recovery in excess of the demand of the plaintiffs the third-party plaintiffs have exceeded the limits of section 193-a of the Civil Practice Act. Since the primary relief sought is the recovery of $600 and the relief otherwise demanded is in the alternative, plaintiffs may properly recover over any loss sustained by rea[393]*393son of the plaintiffs’ complaint and, in that event, the demand for alternative relief will not be reached. Defendant further contends that the third-party plaintiffs do not seek relief by contribution or indemnity. It is a fact, however, that under the allegations of the third-party complaint, the third-party defendant is or may be liable to them for all or part of plaintiffs’ claim against them. Finally, it is argued that the third-party complaint is deficient for failure to allege performance of the settlement agreement. However, the third-party plaintiffs do allege the obligations of the settlement agreement on their part and specifically allege the performance of those obligations. The motion is denied. [See, also, 21 Misc 2d 150, 151, 224.]

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

Francis X. Conlon, J.

The third-party defendant moves for dismissal of the third-party complaint upon the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and that it is not properly interposed in this action.

The third-party plaintiffs allege that, by virtue of certain transactions and grievances, they had reached a settlement with the defendant. The latter was, among other things, to redeliver to the third-party plaintiffs certain notes which defendant failed to do. The action of the plaintiffs against the defendant is upon four of those notes totaling $600. The third-party plaintiffs seek to recover over the sum of $600 or, in the alternative, a larger sum of money representing the principal amount of the notes which were not returned by the defendant. It is the contention of the third-party defendant that by seeking a recovery in excess of the demand of the plaintiffs the third-party plaintiffs have exceeded the limits of section 193-a of the Civil Practice Act. Since the primary relief sought is the recovery of $600 and the relief otherwise demanded is in the alternative, plaintiffs may properly recover over any loss sustained by rea[393]*393son of the plaintiffs’ complaint and, in that event, the demand for alternative relief will not be reached. Defendant further contends that the third-party plaintiffs do not seek relief by contribution or indemnity. It is a fact, however, that under the allegations of the third-party complaint, the third-party defendant is or may be liable to them for all or part of plaintiffs’ claim against them. Finally, it is argued that the third-party complaint is deficient for failure to allege performance of the settlement agreement. However, the third-party plaintiffs do allege the obligations of the settlement agreement on their part and specifically allege the performance of those obligations. The motion is denied. [See, also, 21 Misc 2d 150, 151, 224.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Misc. 2d 392, 195 N.Y.S.2d 736, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-v-r-m-embroidery-co-nysupct-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack