Case ID: misc2d_33/html/0453-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

N. & E. Greenberg’s Sons, Inc., Respondent, v. Peter Pan Fur Co., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    April 20, 1961.
    
      Joseph J. Einhorn and Patricia 8. Teitel for appellant. Marvin E. Kramer and Ronald Podolsky for defendant and third-party plaintiff-respondent.
   Per Curiam.

While a defendant in a negligence action may implead its insurance broker who allegedly breached his agreement to provide full insurance coverage, it was error for the trial court to deny the third-party defendant’s motion to sever the main and third-party actions, as the third-party defendant would be subjected to some prejudice if both actions were tried together before the same jury (Thornton v. City of New York, 20 Misc 2d 838; Kelly v. Yannotti, 4 N Y 2d 603).

The order should he reversed, with $10 costs and the motion granted.

Concur — Hecht, J. P., Hoestadter and Gold, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.