Legal Opinion

Finkelstein Realty, Inc. v. Rudensky

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1967PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHarold Tessler, J.

Plaintiff moves to examine the third-party defendants. In opposition, third-party defendant Yagoda contends examination is not proper because plaintiff has made no claim of any kind against him and because he has in his answer made no claim against plaintiff.

In Ciaffone v. Manhattantown, Inc. (20 A D 2d 666) the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that the examination of a defendant by a third-party defendant should be limited only to those matters which are material and necessary to the third-party action. However, subsequently, in Lombardo v. Pecora (23 A D 2d 460) the same court…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Rudolph v. Bowling Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Institute for Design & Construction v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API