From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cammarata v. Conley

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jun 17, 1958
13 Misc. 2d 349 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)

Opinion

June 17, 1958

Appeal from the District Court, Nassau County, ROBERT C. RICHTER, J.

John Guastella and Edward Marks for appellants.

Emerson A. Swartz for respondents.


The action against the defendant Swartz, as stakeholder, was properly joined with the action against defendant Conley (Civ. Prac. Act, § 258) and he was properly before the court as a conditionally necessary party (Civ. Prac. Act, § 193). This defendant, if so advised, may apply for appropriate relief under the provisions of section 285 of the Civil Practice Act.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed on the law and facts, and order dated December 30, 1957 modified to the extent of denying defendant Swartz' motion for summary judgment, and as so modified affirmed, without costs on this appeal to either party. Appeal from order of February 26, 1958 denying plaintiff's motion to vacate the judgment dismissed as academic. Order dated February 26, 1958 granting leave to defendant Conley to file jury demand nunc pro tunc affirmed, without costs.

Concur — PETTE, HART and BROWN, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Cammarata v. Conley

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jun 17, 1958
13 Misc. 2d 349 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
Case details for

Cammarata v. Conley

Case Details

Full title:FRANK CAMMARATA et al., Doing Business as PILGRIM REAL ESTATE, Appellants…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Jun 17, 1958

Citations

13 Misc. 2d 349 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
179 N.Y.S.2d 923