Schwartz v. Jonathan Woodner & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartz v. Jonathan Woodner & Co.

40 A.D.2d 1027, 339 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3030

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

DecidedDecember 26, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 40 A.D.2d 1027 (Schwartz v. Jonathan Woodner & Co.) 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

Schwartz v. Jonathan Woodner & Co., 40 A.D.2d 1027, 339 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3030 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., one of the two third-party defendants, Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company' appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 3, 1971, which denied its motion, pursuant to CPLR 603, to sever the third-party action against it. Order reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. The third-party complaint as against appellant is grounded on an insurance policy allegedly indemnifying the defendant third-party plaintiff against a tort claim such as that underlying plaintiffs’ complaint. The fact of the existence of insurance relative to the occurrence complained of by the plaintiffs will be prejudicial as a matter of law to appellant (Strauss v. Bennett Bros. Corp., 27 A D 2d 528). It is difficult to suppose that appellant would not be subject to some prejudice if both the main action and this third-party action were to be tried before the same jury (Kelly v. Yannotti, 4 N Y 2d 603). The denial of appellant’s motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Shapiro, Gulotta and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., one of the two third-party defendants, Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company' appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 3, 1971, which denied its motion, pursuant to CPLR 603, to sever the third-party action against it. Order reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. The third-party complaint as against appellant is grounded on an insurance policy allegedly indemnifying the defendant third-party plaintiff against a tort claim such as that underlying plaintiffs’ complaint. The fact of the existence of insurance relative to the occurrence complained of by the plaintiffs will be prejudicial as a matter of law to appellant (Strauss v. Bennett Bros. Corp., 27 A D 2d 528). It is difficult to suppose that appellant would not be subject to some prejudice if both the main action and this third-party action were to be tried before the same jury (Kelly v. Yannotti, 4 N Y 2d 603). The denial of appellant’s motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Shapiro, Gulotta and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 1027, 339 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-jonathan-woodner-co-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack