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
MUNICIPALITY CAN BE LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF A DRAINAGE SYSTEM, NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE WITHOUT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE SERVICE OF A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL ALLEGING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MEDICAL RECORDS PROVIDED NOTICE OF THE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).
MERE DENIAL OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN A FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS THE OWNER AND HOLDER OF THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ASSERT THE DEFENSE THAT THE PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING, PRECEDENT TO THE CONTRARY OVERRULED (SECOND DEPT).
No Need for Proof of Agent’s Authority—Five-Day Notice Demanding Rent Valid
FAILURE TO GRANT AN ADJOURNMENT TO ALLOW DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHO HAD BEEN ACTING IN A LIMITED ADVISORY CAPACITY, TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE FOR A SUPPRESSION HEARING DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, NEW SUPPRESSION HEARING ORDERED, APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT VIOLATED VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1141 BY MAKING A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE, DEFENDANT AVERRED PLAINTIFF WAS DRIVING TOO FAST, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FORECLOSURE ACTION ON THE ENTIRE DEBT TIME-BARRED; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEBT WAS DE-ACCELERATED; IF SO, ONLY THOSE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS DUE WITHIN SIX YEARS OF THE START OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION ARE RECOVERABLE (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 © 2026 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...