Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard Velasquez, J.), entered August 27, 2007. The order denied third-party defendant's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint.

Order affirmed without costs.

This Civil Court action was commenced in June 2004. Plaintiff, who was then represented by Allen M. Rosenthal, Esq., sought to recover from defendants Larry
Warren and Yvette Warren $6,420 for podiatry services. After plaintiff obtained a default judgment against defendants, the sheriff executed on defendants' income to enforce the judgment, and in 2006 a satisfaction of judgment was filed.

The same year that this action was commenced, the professional relationship between plaintiff and Rosenthal terminated acrimoniously, and the issue of the relative rights and [*2]obligations between plaintiff and Rosenthal became the subject of a lawsuit brought by Rosenthal in Supreme Court, Kings County. In connection with that litigation, Justice Saiita stayed plaintiff from proceeding against Rosenthal in any existing actions in the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court or from commencing any new actions in "said Court."

In March 2007, the Civil Court granted defendant Yvette Warren's motion to vacate the default judgment and restored the matter to the calendar. By order dated April 24, 2007, the Civil Court directed plaintiff and the marshal who executed upon the judgment to return all funds collected from Yvette Warren forthwith. By order dated May 10, 2007, the Civil Court precluded plaintiff from joining Rosenthal as a defendant in this case. On June 6, 2007, Yvette Warren commenced a third-party action against Rosenthal, alleging "failure to return money." Thereafter, Rosenthal sought to dismiss the third-party complaint pursuant to CPLR 1007 and CPLR 3211 (a) (7). The Civil Court denied Rosenthal's motion after oral argument, concluding that all the issues of fact that had been raised could best be addressed at trial. The instant appeal by third-party defendant Rosenthal ensued.

The New York impleader statute, CPLR 1007, has been afforded an increasingly liberal interpretation, designed to streamline the operation of the courts, and to avoid multiplicity and circuitry of actions (George Cohen Agency v Donald S. Perlman Agency, 51 NY2d 358, 362 [1980]; Siegel, NY Prac § 157 [4th ed]). We find that, under the circumstances presented, third-party defendant's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint was properly denied (see Forstman v Schulting, 108 NY 110 [1880]; Fusco v Kraumlap Realty Corp., 1 AD3d 189, 193 [2003]; S.W.S. Realty Co. v Geandomenico, 126 Misc 2d 769 [1984]; 22A NY Jur 2d, Contracts § 533).

Accordingly, the order entered August 27, 2007 is affirmed.

Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 26, 2009