Ambriano v. Bowman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ambriano v. Bowman

245 A.D.2d 404, 666 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13095

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 404 (Ambriano v. Bowman) 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

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).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discre[405]*405tion 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

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discre[405]*405tion 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 404, 666 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ambriano-v-bowman-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack