Opinion
February 14, 1947.
Present — Martin, P.J., Glennon, Dore, Callahan and Peck, JJ. [See post, p. 1001.]
We think that defendant is entitled to any benefit that the judgment on the first cause of action may prove to be as a defense to the second cause of action, and that the defendant should be permitted to plead such judgment as a defense by way of a supplemental answer. We do not pass upon the efficacy of the defense in any respect. Order appealed from unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion to strike the supplemental answer denied.