Case ID: misc2d_32/html/0655-01.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

Central Budget Corp., Plaintiff, v. Jaime Perdigon et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Leo’s Auto Sales Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    February 2, 1961.
    
      Eugene Broohs for appellant. Moses C. Weinman for respondents.
   Per Curiam.

The purchasers of a used car, being; sued by a finance company for the balance due on a conditional sales contract, served a third-party complaint on the dealer who sold the car and assigned the sales contract to the plaintiff. The matters set forth in such third-party complaint would, if established, either negate any liability of the third-party plaintiffs to the original plaintiff or present grounds for an independent action against the third-party defendant without showing any liability of such party for any part of the claim set forth in the original action. Under such circumstances, the third-party complaint fails to meet the requirements of section 193-a of the Civil Practice Act (see 2 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, p. 607) and should have been dismissed.

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

Concur — Hecht, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.