Abbatepaolo v. Blumberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abbatepaolo v. Blumberg

7 A.D.2d 847, 182 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10435

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 7 A.D.2d 847 (Abbatepaolo v. Blumberg) 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

Abbatepaolo v. Blumberg, 7 A.D.2d 847, 182 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Action No. 1 was instituted by Paul Abbatepaolo to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him at about 11:30 a.m. on February 22, 1957 when he was struck, while riding a bicycle, by a motor vehicle owned and controlled by the defendants Blumberg. Action No. 2 was instituted by Paul Abbatepaolo and by his son, Louis, to recover damages for personal injuries against the owners, operators and those in control of an ambulance and an oil truck. The alleged injuries were sustained at about 12:10 P.m. on February 22, 1957 when the ambulance which was taking Paul to the hospital, following the accident involved in Action No. 1, and in which Louis was also riding, was in collision with the oil truck. The owner of the ambulance and the lessee of the oil truck appeal from an order granting respond[848]*848ents’ motion, pursuant to section 96-a of the Civil Practice Act, for a joint trial of the two actions. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. The two actions did not grow out of the same set of facts and a joint trial, therefore, could not be ordered. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 96-a; Gamble v. Fraleigh, 1 Misc 2d 347, 348.) If it be assumed that the motion could be considered as one for a consolidation under section 96 of the Civil Practice Act, such relief would also be unwarranted. (Pride v. Perras, 6 A D 2d 842.) Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Hallinan J., not voting. •

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

Action No. 1 was instituted by Paul Abbatepaolo to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him at about 11:30 a.m. on February 22, 1957 when he was struck, while riding a bicycle, by a motor vehicle owned and controlled by the defendants Blumberg. Action No. 2 was instituted by Paul Abbatepaolo and by his son, Louis, to recover damages for personal injuries against the owners, operators and those in control of an ambulance and an oil truck. The alleged injuries were sustained at about 12:10 P.m. on February 22, 1957 when the ambulance which was taking Paul to the hospital, following the accident involved in Action No. 1, and in which Louis was also riding, was in collision with the oil truck. The owner of the ambulance and the lessee of the oil truck appeal from an order granting respond[848]*848ents’ motion, pursuant to section 96-a of the Civil Practice Act, for a joint trial of the two actions. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. The two actions did not grow out of the same set of facts and a joint trial, therefore, could not be ordered. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 96-a; Gamble v. Fraleigh, 1 Misc 2d 347, 348.) If it be assumed that the motion could be considered as one for a consolidation under section 96 of the Civil Practice Act, such relief would also be unwarranted. (Pride v. Perras, 6 A D 2d 842.) Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Hallinan J., not voting. •

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 847, 182 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abbatepaolo-v-blumberg-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack