Case Name: Grandview Construction Corp., Plaintiff, v. Roreck Construction Co., Inc., et al, Defendants; Malan Construction Corp., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, v. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant; Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Company, Second Third-Party Plaintiff v. Roreck Construction Co., Inc., et al., Second Third-Party Defendants; Herman Korfhage, Plaintiff, v. Malan Construction Corp. et al., Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1961-11-20
Citations: 14 A.D.2d 909
Docket Number: 
Parties: Grandview Construction Corp., Plaintiff, v. Roreck Construction Co., Inc., et al, Defendants. Malan Construction Corp., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, v. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Company, Second Third-Party Plaintiff v. Roreck Construction Co., Inc., et al., Second Third-Party Defendants. Herman Korfhage, Plaintiff, v. Malan Construction Corp. et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 909–910

Head Matter:
Grandview Construction Corp., Plaintiff, v. Roreck Construction Co., Inc., et al, Defendants. Malan Construction Corp., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, v. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Company, Second Third-Party Plaintiff v. Roreck Construction Co., Inc., et al., Second Third-Party Defendants. Herman Korfhage, Plaintiff, v. Malan Construction Corp. et al., Defendants.

Opinion:
Such supplemental supplemental answer shall be served within 20 days after entry of the order hereon. We do not pass on the sufficiency of the new affirmative defense sought to be pleaded in the proposed supplemental answer. That question should not be determined on a motion for leave to serve an amended pleading. The sufficiency of the defense may be more properly tested by a motion addressed directly to that question (cf. Vasile & Son, v. Concrete Trans-Mix Corp., 1 A D 2d 936). Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.