Legal Opinion

Henderson v. Park Central Motors Service, Inc.

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

Decided January 15, 1929PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

The Special Term was in error in holding that the fact that the plaintiff is not the real party in interest does not constitute a defense. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 210; Spooner v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 115 N. Y. 22; Wittner v. Burr Avenue Development Corporation, 222 App. Div. 285.) However, to establish such defense in this case it should be made to appear that the adjustment made by the plaintiff with the insurance company was at least equal to the amount of the claim asserted by the plaintiff against the defendant. From all that appears from the allegations of the defense, the plaintiff may…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Spooner v. D., L. & West. RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. Wittner v. Burr Avenue Development Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Par-X Uniform Service Corp. v. Emigrant Industrial Savings BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1945
  2. Henderson v. Park Central Motors Service, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Reddington v. Elco Merchandizing Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932
  4. Skinner v. KleinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
  5. Feeter v. Van Scott Bros.New York Supreme Court · 1973

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API