Rockaway Boulevard Wrecking & Lumber Co. v. Raylite Elec. Corp.

• Decision Date: 19 May 1966
• Citation: Rockaway Boulevard Wrecking & Lumber Co. v. Raylite Elec. Corp., 270 N.Y.S.2d 1, 25 A.D.2d 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 1966)
• Parties: ROCKAWAY BOULEVARD WRECKING & LUMBER CO., Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RAYLITE ELECTRIC CORP., Defendant and Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK and The New York City Housing Authority, Defendants-Respondents. The NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROCKAWAY BOULEVARD WRECKING & LUMBER CO., Inc. and The William J. Burns International Detective Agency, Inc., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 1

270 N.Y.S.2d 1

25 A.D.2d 842

ROCKAWAY BOULEVARD WRECKING & LUMBER CO., Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RAYLITE ELECTRIC CORP., Defendant and Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK and The New York City Housing

Authority, Defendants-Respondents.

The NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROCKAWAY BOULEVARD WRECKING & LUMBER CO., Inc. and The

William J. Burns International Detective Agency,

Inc., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

May 19, 1966.

H. Birnbaum, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent and third-party defendants-respondents.

F. H. Block, New York City, for defendant and plaintiff-appellant.

L. Eckman, New York City, for defendants-respondents and third-party plaintiff-respondent.

Before BREITEL, J.P., and RABIN, McNALLY, EAGER and STEUER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Order, entered October 29, 1965, granting respondent Rockaway Boulevard Wrecking & Lumber Company's motion to consolidate, and denying appellant Raylite Electric Corporation's motion to strike an affirmative 'real party in interest' defense by defendant Rockaway Boulevard, and granting defendant New York City Housing Authority's motion for leave to interpose a similar defense, unanimously modified on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to grant appellant's motion to strike the aforesaid affirmative defense, to deny defendant Authority's motion for leave to interpose an affirmative defense, and to provide that Raylite Electric Corporation shall have the right to open and close at the trial of the consolidated action, and as so modified, the order is affirmed without costs or disbursements to any party. The affirmative defense that appellant Raylite, by virtue of a partial recovery from its insurance carrier, is no longer the real party in interest, must fail both because of Raylite's subrogation-type agreement authorized under CPLR 1004 and...