Utica Mutual Insurance v. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Utica Mutual Insurance v. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp.

271 A.D.2d 943

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 943 (Utica Mutual Insurance v. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp.) 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

Utica Mutual Insurance v. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., 271 A.D.2d 943 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant, Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation, has appealed from an order of Special Term, which denied its motion to implead Chester A. Miller and Filorian Tischhauser as parties liable over to the moving defendant on its cross complaint in the event a, recovery is had by the plaintiff against it. The grounds of negligence in the cross complaint are divergent from the grounds of negligence, in the complaint. To implead the defendants in the cross complaint would result in confusion and seriously complicate the trial. It would compel-plaintiff to meet an issue which [944]*944it does not raise in its pleading. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur. [See post, p. 1047.]

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

The defendant, Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation, has appealed from an order of Special Term, which denied its motion to implead Chester A. Miller and Filorian Tischhauser as parties liable over to the moving defendant on its cross complaint in the event a, recovery is had by the plaintiff against it. The grounds of negligence in the cross complaint are divergent from the grounds of negligence, in the complaint. To implead the defendants in the cross complaint would result in confusion and seriously complicate the trial. It would compel-plaintiff to meet an issue which [944]*944it does not raise in its pleading. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur. [See post, p. 1047.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/utica-mutual-insurance-v-central-hudson-gas-electric-corp-nyappdiv-1947.