Ashkenazi v. Seguran Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ashkenazi v. Seguran Realty Corp.

115 A.D.2d 516, 496 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54924

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.2d 516 (Ashkenazi v. Seguran Realty Corp.) 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

Ashkenazi v. Seguran Realty Corp., 115 A.D.2d 516, 496 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In actions, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, plaintiff in action No. 1 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.), dated January 17, 1985, which denied his motion for consolidation.

[517]*517Order reversed, with costs, and motion granted to the extent that the actions are directed to be tried jointly.

In each of these actions for specific performance or, in the alternative, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff purports to be the contract vendee of a parcel of realty owned by Securan Realty Corp., a defendant in each lawsuit. Each plaintiff thus has an interest in the outcome of the other’s action, and resolution of the matters will involve, in part, a determination of whether Joseph Cohen’s "letter of understanding”, which was executed one month before Ezra Ashkenazi’s contract, was a valid contract of sale. Special Term denied the motion for consolidation without any explanation. The interests of judicial economy mandate that the actions be tried jointly. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In actions, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, plaintiff in action No. 1 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.), dated January 17, 1985, which denied his motion for consolidation.

[517]*517Order reversed, with costs, and motion granted to the extent that the actions are directed to be tried jointly.

In each of these actions for specific performance or, in the alternative, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff purports to be the contract vendee of a parcel of realty owned by Securan Realty Corp., a defendant in each lawsuit. Each plaintiff thus has an interest in the outcome of the other’s action, and resolution of the matters will involve, in part, a determination of whether Joseph Cohen’s "letter of understanding”, which was executed one month before Ezra Ashkenazi’s contract, was a valid contract of sale. Special Term denied the motion for consolidation without any explanation. The interests of judicial economy mandate that the actions be tried jointly. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 516, 496 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashkenazi-v-seguran-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1985.