Case ID: ny_248/html/0565-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles A. Bernam et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Bernam & Tyson, et al., Respondents, v. Harry E. Hecht, Appellant.
    
      Practice — parties ■ — • motion for leave to serve supplemental complaint and bring in additional party defendant properly denied.
    
    
      Bernam v. Hecht, 222 App. Div. 814, reversed.
    (Argued April 30, 1928;
    decided May 11, 1928.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 6, 1928, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion for leave to serve a supplemental summons and bring in another party defendant. The action was to recover a real estate broker’s commissions for leasing real property. It was sought to bring in the proposed lessee as a party defendant on the theory that it had conspired with defendant to defeat the plaintiffs’ right to recover.
    The following questions were certified:
    “ 1. Should the Goelet Leasing Co. be added as an additional party defendant in this action?
    “ 2. Should plaintiffs be permitted, in this action, to serve a supplemental complaint in accordance with plaintiffs’ prayer in the motion for permission so to do herein and in accordance with the order of the Appellate Division appealed from herein?
    “ 3. Is the cause of action which plaintiffs seek permission to set up in their supplmental complaint to be served herein a proper one to join with the cause of action alleged against the original defendant?
    “ 4. Should the order of the Special Term of the Supreme Court, Westchester county, dated the 17th day of June, 1927, denying plaintiffs’ motion have been reversed and should the motion of the plaintiffs have been granted? ”
    
      Joseph Rosenzweig, Joseph H. Robins and David Tepp for appellant.
    
      Clinton T. Taylor and James B. Stilson for respondents.
   Order of Appellate Division reversed and that of Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division. Questions certified answered in the negative. Held, that the plaintiffs have failed to show any facts justifying or tending to justify the joinder of an additional party.

Concur: Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound,- Crane, Andrews, Lehman, Kellogg and O’Brien, JJ.