Majority
Upon the foregoing papers this motion to vacate the demand for a bill of particulars is denied. It is within the contemplation of section 193-a of the Civil Practice Act that a third-party defendant may oppose the claims of plaintiff against the defendant, third-party plaintiff. This third-party defendant has squarely put in issue the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint. It follows that it is entitled to a bill of particulars. The demand is modified to the extent consented to with reference to item 2, and by striking item 6 and limiting items 7 and 8 to those leases as to which it is claimed' that there was a misrepresentation as to the amount of rent. The branch of the motion seeking an examination by plaintiff of the third-party defendant is likewise granted. While it is clear that the plaintiff’s complaint seeks no relief against the third-party defendant, the latter has elected, quite properly, to oppose plaintiff’s claims against1 the defendant. Under the doctrine of Dorros, Inc., v. Dorros Bros., Inc. ( 274 App. Div. 11 ), it would