Troshow v. B. Altman & Co.
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFrankenthaler, J.
Prior to the enactment of section 211-a of the Civil Practice Act by chapter 714 of the Laws of 1928, it was well established that a defendant could not invoke subdivision 2 of section 193 of the Civil Practice Act to bring in a joint tort feasor because the latter would not be hable to the former, in whole or in part, for the claim made against the defendant. (Greenhouse v. Rochester Taxicab Co., 218 App. Div. 224; appeal dismissed, 244 N. Y. 559.) The cases of Fedden v. Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal (204 App. Div. 741) and Hailfinger v. Meyer (215 id. 35) are distinguishable since…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Fedden v. Brooklyn Eastern District TerminalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
- Haines v. Bero Engineering Construction Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
- Greenhouse v. Rochester Taxicab Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
- Greenhouse v. Rochester Taxicab CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Rowe v. DenlerNew York Supreme Court · 1929