De Mato v. County of Suffolk
New York Supreme Court
79 Misc. 2d 484, 360 N.Y.S.2d 570 (1974)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
The De Matos (plaintiffs) were involved in an accident with a car driven by Howard Widmaier (defendant) and owned by Kathleen Widmaier (defendant). Kathleen was not in the car at the time of the accident. Edna De Mato sued Howard and Kathleen for personal injuries Edna allegedly suffered due to the accident. Kathleen counterclaimed against De Mato regarding damage to Kathleen’s car. In response, the De Matos asserted a purported crossclaim against Howard seeking indemnification, contending that Howard’s negligence was at least partially to blame for the accident and thus the damage to Kathleen’s car. Kathleen and Howard moved to dismiss the De Matos’ crossclaim, arguing that Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 3019 did not permit crossclaims or counterclaims in a reply.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scileppi, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
