Reizen v. Pardes

Decision Date23 March 1950
Citation197 Misc. 384
PartiesAlbert Reizen, Doing Business as Inter County Painting Company, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>Max Pardes, Doing Business as Crown Paint & Wallpaper Company, Defendant.<BR>Max Pardes, Doing Business as Crown Paint & Wallpaper Company, Third-Party Plaintiff,<BR>v.<BR>Isador Nudelman, Doing Business as Liberty Paint Supply Company, Third-Party Defendant.<BR>Isador Nudelman, Doing Business at Liberty Paint Supply Company, Third-Party Plaintiff,<BR>v.<BR>United States Gypsum Company, Third-Party Defendant, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court

James Bruce and A. Hayne de Yampert for appellant.

Leon E. Borden and Hyman Stein for respondent.

STEINBRINK, RUBENSTEIN and COLDEN, JJ., concur.

Per Curiam.

The second third-party defendant having raised issues by its denial of the allegations of the main complaint, is, within the purview of section 288 of the Civil Practice Act to be deemed a "party" subject to examination before trial by plaintiff.

The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs.

Order affirmed, etc.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Elliott v. Larrimore
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • January 11, 1954
    ...New York practice is a 'party'. Portnoy v. United Engineers & Constructors, Inc., 274 App.Div. 891, 82 N.Y.S.2d 464; and Reizen v. Pardes, 197 Misc. 384, 98 N.Y.S.2d 276. There remains, then, the necessity to determine on which side of a case a third party is to be placed in relation to the......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT