Bahnken v. Dance Soiree, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bahnken v. Dance Soiree, Inc.

224 A.D.2d 567, 639 N.Y.S.2d 705, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1422

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 567 (Bahnken v. Dance Soiree, Inc.) 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

Bahnken v. Dance Soiree, Inc., 224 A.D.2d 567, 639 N.Y.S.2d 705, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1422 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant John W. Dolan, Jr., d/b/a John Dolan Insurance Agency appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated July 27, 1994, which denied his motion to sever the third-party action from the main action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It appears that the court intends to try the third-party action first, so as to determine the question of insurance coverage. Thus, we see no improvident exercise of the court’s discretion in denying the motion to sever the third-party action (see, CPLR 603; see also, Harris v Manos, 181 AD2d 967). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant John W. Dolan, Jr., d/b/a John Dolan Insurance Agency appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated July 27, 1994, which denied his motion to sever the third-party action from the main action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It appears that the court intends to try the third-party action first, so as to determine the question of insurance coverage. Thus, we see no improvident exercise of the court’s discretion in denying the motion to sever the third-party action (see, CPLR 603; see also, Harris v Manos, 181 AD2d 967). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 567, 639 N.Y.S.2d 705, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bahnken-v-dance-soiree-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack