43rd Street Deli v. Paramount Leasehold, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

43rd Street Deli v. Paramount Leasehold, L.P.

89 A.D.3d 573, 932 N.Y.2d 694

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 17, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 573 (43rd Street Deli v. Paramount Leasehold, L.P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

43rd Street Deli v. Paramount Leasehold, L.P., 89 A.D.3d 573, 932 N.Y.2d 694 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The motion should have been granted in the interests of judicial economy (see e.g. Amcan Holdings, Inc. v Torys LLP, 32 AD3d 337, 339 [2006]; Moretti v 860 W. Tower, 221 AD2d 191 [1995]). The record shows that the Supreme Court action and [574]*574the Civil Court proceeding involve the same parties, and essentially the same questions of law and fact. Defendant has failed to demonstrate that any of its substantial rights would be prejudiced (see Fisher 40th & 3rd Co. v Welsbach Elec. Corp., 266 AD2d 169, 170 [1999]; Amtorg Trading Corp. v Broadway & 56th St. Assoc., 191 AD2d 212, 213 [1993]), and the Civil Court cannot accord the complete relief sought by plaintiff in the Supreme Court action (see DeCastro v Bhokari, 201 AD2d 382, 382-383 [1994]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The motion should have been granted in the interests of judicial economy (see e.g. Amcan Holdings, Inc. v Torys LLP, 32 AD3d 337, 339 [2006]; Moretti v 860 W. Tower, 221 AD2d 191 [1995]). The record shows that the Supreme Court action and [574]*574the Civil Court proceeding involve the same parties, and essentially the same questions of law and fact. Defendant has failed to demonstrate that any of its substantial rights would be prejudiced (see Fisher 40th & 3rd Co. v Welsbach Elec. Corp., 266 AD2d 169, 170 [1999]; Amtorg Trading Corp. v Broadway & 56th St. Assoc., 191 AD2d 212, 213 [1993]), and the Civil Court cannot accord the complete relief sought by plaintiff in the Supreme Court action (see DeCastro v Bhokari, 201 AD2d 382, 382-383 [1994]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 573, 932 N.Y.2d 694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/43rd-street-deli-v-paramount-leasehold-lp-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack