Augenbraun v. G & B Distributors

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Augenbraun v. G & B Distributors

17 A.D.2d 785, 232 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7794

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

DecidedOctober 9, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 A.D.2d 785 (Augenbraun v. G & B Distributors) 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

Augenbraun v. G & B Distributors, 17 A.D.2d 785, 232 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on or about April 16, 1962, consolidating actions, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and motion to consolidate denied, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants. Respondent having started Action No. 1 for personal injuries to the deceased, moved to amend her complaint to include another cause of action for wrongful death. The application was denied with leave to renew upon submitting proof of causal connection between the accident and decedent’s death. Instead of seeking to comply with the order or appealing from it, respondent sought to obviate its effect by starting Action No. 2. Consolidation would accomplish this purpose. The prior order may not be nullified by such tactics. Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on or about April 16, 1962, consolidating actions, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and motion to consolidate denied, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants. Respondent having started Action No. 1 for personal injuries to the deceased, moved to amend her complaint to include another cause of action for wrongful death. The application was denied with leave to renew upon submitting proof of causal connection between the accident and decedent’s death. Instead of seeking to comply with the order or appealing from it, respondent sought to obviate its effect by starting Action No. 2. Consolidation would accomplish this purpose. The prior order may not be nullified by such tactics. Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 785, 232 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/augenbraun-v-g-b-distributors-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack