N. & E. Greenberg's Sons, Inc. v. Peter Pan Fur Co.

33 Misc. 2d 453, 215 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3042
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided April 20, 1961·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

While a defendant in a negligence action may implead its insurance broker who allegedly breached his agreement to provide full insurance coverage, it was error for the trial court to deny the third-party defendant’s motion to sever the main and third-party actions, as the third-party defendant would be subjected to some prejudice if both actions were tried together before the same jury (Thornton v. City of New York, 20 Misc 2d 838; Kelly v. Yannotti, 4 N Y 2d 603).

[454]*454The order should he reversed, with $10 costs and the motion granted.

Concur — Hecht, J. P., Hoestadter and Gold, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

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

N. & E. Greenberg's Sons, Inc. v. Peter Pan Fur Co., 33 Misc. 2d 453, 215 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3042 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

33 Misc. 2d 453 (N. & E. Greenberg's Sons, Inc. v. Peter Pan Fur Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harris v. Manos
181 A.D.2d 967 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Crobak v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co.
50 Misc. 2d 908 (New York Supreme Court, 1966)
Rauch v. Berlin
24 A.D.2d 976 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1965)