From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Castignoli v. Van Guard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 25, 1997
242 A.D.2d 357 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

August 25, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order dated July 30, 1996,

Ordered that the order dated December 6, 1996, is reversed insofar as appealed from, the order dated July 30, 1996, is vacated, and the motion to vacate the notice of vouching in is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.

In order for a party to vouch in another individual or entity, the notice of vouching in "must be timely and proper, and it must offer to grant control to the vouchee of the defense of the litigation" ( Cole v. Long Is. Light. Co., 14 A.D.2d 922; see also, United N.Y. Sandy Hook Pilots Assn. v. Rodermond Indus., 394 F.2d 65, 72-73; 3 Carmody-Wait 2d, N.Y. Prac § 19:175, at 556; 82 N.Y. Jur 2d, Parties, § 186; Restatement of Judgments § 107; cf., Bay State Heating Air Conditioning Co. v. American Ins. Co., 78 A.D.2d 147, 149).

Here, the record indicates that the notice of vouching in was served some four months after the note of issue and certificate of readiness for trial were served. Further, all depositions had been completed some 10 months prior to the service of the notice of vouching in. Under these circumstances, we find that the notice of vouching in was untimely ( Cole v. Long Is. Light. Co., supra).

In light of our determination that the notice of vouching in was untimely, we do not pass upon the question whether the vouching in procedure was applicable in this matter.

Thompson, J.P., Joy, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Castignoli v. Van Guard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 25, 1997
242 A.D.2d 357 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Castignoli v. Van Guard

Case Details

Full title:MARIE CASTIGNOLI et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAMMO VAN GUARD et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 25, 1997

Citations

242 A.D.2d 357 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
661 N.Y.S.2d 280

Citing Cases

Turkish Arilines, Inc. v. American Airlines

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. The Supreme Court properly found the existence of a triable…

Perez v. 139 Med. Facility, P.C.

So long as these minimal requirements are met, the vouching in notice cannot be dismissed or vacated by the…