Adler v. Adler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adler v. Adler

57 A.D.2d 1014, 394 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12308

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

DecidedMay 19, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 57 A.D.2d 1014 (Adler v. Adler) 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

Adler v. Adler, 57 A.D.2d 1014, 394 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered November 1, 1976 in Delaware County, as denied defendant’s motion for consolidation. This protracted litigation brings to this court for resolution the exercise of discretion by the trial court in denying an application to consolidate two actions brought by the respective parties. The plaintiff sued the defendant for enforcement of a foreign judgment of divorce. Defendant counterclaimed for modification of certain terms and conditions of the decree, relating primarily to alimony and support, and further sought to defeat an application for a judgment for arrears. All pretrial disclosure proceedings were completed and the case was placed on the Supreme Court, Trial Term Calendar. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced a second action seeking certain relief on the ground that several conveyances of real property by the defendant were fraudulent. The plaintiff moved to transfer the first action to the Family Court of Delaware County, and defendant cross-moved to consolidate both actions in Supreme Court. The trial court, finding that the only issues in the first action were those of alimony, support and arrears, granted the motion to transfer said action to the Family Court and denied the cross motion for consolidation in Supreme Court. A motion to consolidate is addressed to the discretion of the court [1015]*1015(CPLR 602). If the instant motion for consolidation were granted, there would have been certain delay because there had been no pretrial discovery proceedings in the second action. The question of delay resulting from consolidation prejudices the rights of the parties in an action in which trial is imminent and is a matter for the consideration and discretion of the Trial .Judge. We see no basis herein to disturb the order from which this appeal has been taken. Order affirmed, with costs. Kane, J. P., Mahoney, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered November 1, 1976 in Delaware County, as denied defendant’s motion for consolidation. This protracted litigation brings to this court for resolution the exercise of discretion by the trial court in denying an application to consolidate two actions brought by the respective parties. The plaintiff sued the defendant for enforcement of a foreign judgment of divorce. Defendant counterclaimed for modification of certain terms and conditions of the decree, relating primarily to alimony and support, and further sought to defeat an application for a judgment for arrears. All pretrial disclosure proceedings were completed and the case was placed on the Supreme Court, Trial Term Calendar. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced a second action seeking certain relief on the ground that several conveyances of real property by the defendant were fraudulent. The plaintiff moved to transfer the first action to the Family Court of Delaware County, and defendant cross-moved to consolidate both actions in Supreme Court. The trial court, finding that the only issues in the first action were those of alimony, support and arrears, granted the motion to transfer said action to the Family Court and denied the cross motion for consolidation in Supreme Court. A motion to consolidate is addressed to the discretion of the court [1015]*1015(CPLR 602). If the instant motion for consolidation were granted, there would have been certain delay because there had been no pretrial discovery proceedings in the second action. The question of delay resulting from consolidation prejudices the rights of the parties in an action in which trial is imminent and is a matter for the consideration and discretion of the Trial .Judge. We see no basis herein to disturb the order from which this appeal has been taken. Order affirmed, with costs. Kane, J. P., Mahoney, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 1014, 394 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adler-v-adler-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack