From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Micari v. Van Kesteren

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 16, 1986
121 A.D.2d 524 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

June 16, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.).


Orders affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Special Term properly granted the plaintiffs leave to serve an amended complaint asserting a direct claim against the appellant (see, Duffy v. Horton Mem. Hosp., 66 N.Y.2d 473; Cucuzza v Vaccarro, 67 N.Y.2d 825, affg 109 A.D.2d 101).

The plaintiffs were not obligated to serve a supplemental summons along with their amended complaint because the third-party defendant was not a "new party" within the meaning of CPLR 305 (a). He was "fully a party to this action with clear notice of the allegations charging him with ultimate liability" from the time of service of the third-party complaint (see, Cucuzza v. Vaccarro, 109 A.D.2d 101, 104, supra; Holst v. Edinger, 93 A.D.2d 313, 315-316). Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Brown and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Micari v. Van Kesteren

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 16, 1986
121 A.D.2d 524 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Micari v. Van Kesteren

Case Details

Full title:PATSY MICARI et al., Respondents, v. WILLIAM VAN KESTEREN, Appellant, et…

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

Date published: Jun 16, 1986

Citations

121 A.D.2d 524 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Vojtech Blau, Inc. v. Sara

Such a claim would relate back to the date the third-party complaint was filed (or served if the third-party…

Ruiz v. Griffin

The Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the motion of the third-party defendant Crystal Run…