Ambriano v. Bowman

245 A.D.2d 404, 666 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13095
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 15, 1997·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discre[405] tion in denying those branches of the respective motions of the third-party defendants which were to dismiss the third-party complaint. Similarly, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ordering a severance of the third-party action. The third-party plaintiff unduly delayed in commencing the third-party action, the parties in the main action have substantially completed their discovery, and would be prejudiced by the delay necessary to allow the third-party defendants to engage in discovery (see, Cusano v Sankyo Seiki Mfg. Co., 184 AD2d 489, 490; Zuckerman v La Guardia Hosp., 125 AD2d 304). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Ambriano v. Bowman, 245 A.D.2d 404, 666 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13095 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

245 A.D.2d 404 (Ambriano v. Bowman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mitchell v. DHG Winrock, LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 52029(U) (New York Supreme Court, Richmond County, 2025)
Paulino v. Staten Is. Univ. Hosp.
2025 NY Slip Op 00232 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Meczkowski v. E.W. Howell Co.
63 A.D.3d 803 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Abreo v. Baez
29 A.D.3d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Wassel v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
307 A.D.2d 752 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Singh v. City of New York
294 A.D.2d 422 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)