
    Otis Elevator Company, Respondent, v. Solomon Miller, Respondent, and Jacob Reisberg, Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    June 8, 1926.
    Judgments — judgment in favor of plaintiff against impleaded defendant under Civil Practice Act, § 193, subd. 2, improper — judgment modified.
    A judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the impleaded defendant herein is improper for the reason that any judgment under subdivision 2 of section 193 of the Civil Practice Act against such a defendant should run in favor only of the defendant originally joined; consequently, the judgment must be modified so as to read in favor of the plaintiff against the original defendant and in favor of the original defendant against the impleaded defendant.
    Appeal by defendant Reisberg from a judgment of the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District, entered in favor of the plaintiff and codefendant Miller.
    
      Michael Seinfeld [.Benjamin Kirschstein of counsel], for the appellant.
    
      Phillips & Avery [Talbot M. Malcolm of counsel], for the respondent.
    
      Benjamin Bardondess [Gustav W. M. Wieboldt of counsel], for the respondent Miller.
   Per Curiam.

The judgment in favor of' the plaintiff against the impleaded defendant Reisberg was improper, as any judgment under subdivision 2, section 193 of the Civil Practice Act against such defendant should run in favor only of the defendant originally joined. (Bozzuffi v. Darrieusecq, 125 Misc. 178.) The judgment is, therefore, modified so as to read in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant Miller and in favor of the defendant Miller against the impleaded defendant Reisberg, and thus affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs to the defendant Reisberg against the plaintiff.

All concur; present, Delehanty, Lydon and Levy, JJ.  