From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seaman v. Colon

Supreme Court, New York County
Oct 5, 1927
130 Misc. 568 (N.Y. Misc. 1927)

Opinion

October 5, 1927.

Wait, Wilson Newton, for the plaintiff.

Miles H. Alben, for the defendants George Colon and William Egan.

Gettner, Simon Asher, for the defendant George Colon Construction Company, Inc.


This is a motion by the plaintiff for an order bringing in Patrick McGovern, Inc., as an additional party defendant and permitting the issuance of a supplemental summons. The objection is made that notice of the application must be given to the proposed defendant. It is certain that notice to the original defendants must be given, and that is the meaning of the decision in Testing Laboratories of New York v. Krainin ( 124 Misc. 667). It cannot be construed to require that the proposed party must also be given notice. The case of Hennenlotter v. Norwich Union Fire Ins. Society ( 124 Misc. 626) would indicate that no such notice is necessary. It may be that notice is necessary under subdivision 2 of section 193 of the Civil Practice Act, but this motion is not made thereunder but rather pursuant to section 192. The question of the sufficiency of the cause of action against the new defendant is not properly before the court on this motion. Motion granted.


Summaries of

Seaman v. Colon

Supreme Court, New York County
Oct 5, 1927
130 Misc. 568 (N.Y. Misc. 1927)
Case details for

Seaman v. Colon

Case Details

Full title:HENRY B. SEAMAN, Plaintiff, v. GEORGE COLON and Others, Defendants

Court:Supreme Court, New York County

Date published: Oct 5, 1927

Citations

130 Misc. 568 (N.Y. Misc. 1927)
224 N.Y.S. 338

Citing Cases

Urban v. Bifulco

The affidavit upon which the application is based is objected to, and the objection, it seems to me, is good,…

Harris v. Simpson

There is no specific provision made in section 193 which prescribes the practice to be followed as to notice.…