You are here: / / THE BUILDER OF THE HOUSE WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS ACTION AGAINST...

THE BUILDER OF THE HOUSE WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS ACTION AGAINST THE SELLER BY THE PURCHASER; EVEN IF THE BUILDER WERE A NECESSARY PARTY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE SUMMONED THE BUILDER ITSELF PURSUANT TO CPLR 1001 (b) RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the complaint should not have been dismissed for failure to join a necessary party because (1) defendant (Accent) was not a necessary party and (2) even if Accent were a necessary party, the court should have summoned Accent itself pursuant to CPLR 1001 (b). The action concerned alleged defects in a house plaintiffs had purchased from defendants and claimed fraud, negligence, deceptive practices, breach of implied warranty, and breach of contract . Accent had constructed the house:

CPLR 1001 “limit[s] the scope of indispensable parties to those cases and only those cases where the determination of the court will adversely affect the rights of nonparties” … . Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate that Accent ought to be a party if complete relief is to be accorded between the plaintiffs and the defendants (see CPLR 1001[a]), and also failed to demonstrate that Accent will be inequitably affected by a judgment in this action absent its joinder … . Accent has no connection to the plaintiffs’ cause of action for breach of contract, which alleges only that the defendants breached their contract with the plaintiffs. As for the balance of the plaintiffs’ claims, Accent is, at best, a joint tortfeasor, with the plaintiffs having the option to proceed against any or all joint tortfeasors … . Accordingly, we reverse the order insofar as appealed from and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a determination on the merits of the remaining branches of the defendants’ motion, and for further proceedings, if necessary, thereafter.

We note that, even if Accent was a necessary party, it appears to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court, and therefore, the Supreme Court should have “order[ed] [it] summoned,” rather than granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint for failure to join a necessary party (CPLR 1001[b] …). Blatt v Johar, 2019 NY Slip Op 07901, Second Dept 11-6-19

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS NOT APPRISED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEAS, MATTER REMITTED FOR OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO VACATE THE PLEAS (SECOND DEPT).
CALIFORNIA STATUTE IS A PROCEDURAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, NOT A SUBSTANTIVE STATUTE OF REPOSE, THEREFORE THE STATUTE WOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN A NEW YORK ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S FEIGNED ISSUE OF FACT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT TO THE APPELLATE COURT’S ATTENTION BY THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE CHILDREN RENDERED THE RECORD INSUFFICIENT FOR REVIEW OF THE CUSTODY RULING; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH A COURT HAS THE DISCRETIONARY “INTERESTS OF JUSTICE” POWER TO VACATE ITS OWN ORDER, THAT POWER SHOULD ONLY BE EXERCISED IN UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PRESENT HERE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY FELL SIX FEET FROM A SCAFFOLD WITHOUT GUARD RAILS; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
STATE’S EXPERTS SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF CONVICTIONS WHICH WERE VACATED BASED UPON DNA EVIDENCE, NEW MENTAL ABNORMALITY TRIAL ORDERED, SEALED CRIMINAL RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, FAILURE HOLD PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING AND TRIAL WITHIN STATUTORY TIME FRAMES DID NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
BANK’S MOTION TO CHANGE THE CAPTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE NOTE TO A NEW PLAINTIFF, AND NO PROCEDURAL STEPS TO REMOVE A DECEASED DEFENDANT FROM THE ACTION WERE TAKEN (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE LIMITED DEFENSE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS TESTIFYING... THE CITY HAD CLEARED A PATH FREE OF ICE AND SNOW ON THE SIDEWALK; PLAINTIFF...