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.


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