Pochari v. County of Westchester
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
In our opinion the complaint and Trumid’s cross complaint against Gamewell alleges active and passive negligence and, therefore, impleader is proper. A cross complaint or a third-party complaint is deemed sufficient on the pleadings if there is any possibility of liability over against a third party (Putvin v. Buffalo Elec. Co., 5 N Y 2d 447; Marzella v. Carlson Hoist & Mach. Co., 280 App. Div. 955; Robinson v. Binghamton Constr. Co., 277 App. Div. 468; Schoenfeld v. Four Leaf Clover Realty Corp., 273 App. Div. 824). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Marzellav v. Carlson Hoist & Machine Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952
- Schoenfeld v. Four Leaf Clover Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948
3Cited by1 opinion
- Holloway v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975