¶1Order unanimously reversed and the motion granted. There is no conflict of interest between appellant in his individual and representative capacities. On the pleadings his position as defendant is identical with plaintiff’s position and the contest is between the Krooss estate now represented by appellant as administrator and respondent Maue. It is proper under the circumstances for appellant to be substituted as plaintiff. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ. [198 Misc. 397.]
277 A.D.2d 973
Krooss v. Maue
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided October 17, 1950
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1950-10-17
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 2010
Relies on Krooss v. Maue
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1950-10-17
View the full empirical analysis of this case →