32 Misc. 2d 655

Central Budget Corp., Plaintiff, v. Jaime Perdigon et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Leo’s Auto Sales Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

February 2, 1961.

Eugene Broohs for appellant. Moses C. Weinman for respondents.

Per Curiam.

The purchasers of a used car, being; sued by a finance company for the balance due on a conditional sales contract, served a third-party complaint on the dealer who sold the car and assigned the sales contract to the plaintiff. The matters set forth in such third-party complaint would, if established, either negate any liability of the third-party plaintiffs to the original plaintiff or present grounds for an independent action against the third-party defendant without showing any liability of such party for any part of the claim set forth in the original action. Under such circumstances, the third-party complaint fails to meet the requirements of section 193-a of the Civil Practice Act (see 2 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, p. 607) and should have been dismissed.

*656The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion granted.

Concur — Hecht, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

Central Budget Corp. v. Perdigon
32 Misc. 2d 655

Case Details

Name
Central Budget Corp. v. Perdigon
Decision Date
Feb 2, 1961
Citations

32 Misc. 2d 655

Jurisdiction
New York

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!