Legal Opinion · Dissent

Daigle v. Texas International Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 14, 1985Published

1DissentKassal, J.

I dissent and would affirm the order of Special Term which denied defendants’ motion for leave to serve an amended answer adding a fourth and fifth counterclaim.

In my view, the fourth and fifth counterclaims seek to inject into this action contingent liability with respect to other actions and proceedings brought by different parties against defendants in other forums. Defendants contend that if they are unsuccessful in the other litigation, there will be a corresponding decrease in the earnings and profit of the Texas International Companies, which may affect the bonus compensation to be…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. East Asiatic Co. v. CorashAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1970
  2. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. v. John David, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1966
  3. Davidowitz v. Dixie AssociatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
  4. McDermott v. Village of MenandsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
  5. Saxon v. Tung Foon OngAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982

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

Powered by the Exa API