Brush v. Levy
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiff, Sarah A. Brush, and by Samuel J. Silbermaii, a third party, from an order of the Supreme Court, made ah the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the lltli day of August,-1900, directing Samuel J. Silberman to be made a party defendant to the action..
Read the full summary
Appeal by the plaintiff, Sarah A. Brush, and by Samuel J. Silbermaii, a third party, from an order of the Supreme Court, made ah the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the lltli day of August,-1900, directing Samuel J. Silberman to be made a party defendant to the action.. The action is brought in equity to vacate and annul a lease made-by plaintiff to defendant for premises known as No. /T9 Canal street, New York city, for a term of ten years from May 1, 1900 ; and the alleged grounds upon which plaintiff asks this relief are, that the…
1Opinion of the Court
O'Brien, J.:
That Silberman is not a necessary party is apparent; and it remains but to determine whether he is a proper party to an action wherein the plaintiff seeks to have canceled the lease which, it is alleged, the defendant procured through fraud.
It is not alleged that the plaintiff, was a party to the agreement made between the defendant, Mrs. Levy, and Silberman, or that her rights are in any way affected thereby. What the defendant, Mrs. Levy, claims is that even if plaintiff succeeds against her, she, Mrs. Levy by bringing Silberman in can have a determination in this same action of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Quinlan v. John E. Olson Construction Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
- Quinlan v. John E. Olson Construction Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912