Barazani v. New Line Cinema Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barazani v. New Line Cinema Corp.

52 A.D.2d 543, 382 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12090

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

DecidedApril 13, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 543 (Barazani v. New Line Cinema 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

Barazani v. New Line Cinema Corp., 52 A.D.2d 543, 382 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12090 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 15, 1975, unanimously [544]*544affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. We find here three separate proceedings, all arising out of relationships described in one contract, and inclusive of a proceeding by judgment creditors for a turnover of funds allegedly held by one of the parties, also deriving from the same relationship. There is no showing of prejudice to any party from consolidation of all these proceedings; indeed, a saving in time and effort for all the parties as well as the trial court would result as a substantial advantage to all concerned. The order of consolidation was a proper exercise of judicial discretion. A further provision of the order here reviewed granted a motion to vacate the default judgment suffered by defendant-respondent Inner Limits. It was shown on substantial evidence in the motion papers that the default was not deliberate, service having been made upon the Secretary of State without subsequent notification to the defendant, and that the defendant responded virtually immediately by motion to open the default upon advice of the existence of the judgment. (See CPLR 5015, subd [a], par 1.) Additionally, existence of a meritorious defense is indicated. The order was properly made. Concur— Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Kupferman, Lupiano and Nunez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 15, 1975, unanimously [544]*544affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. We find here three separate proceedings, all arising out of relationships described in one contract, and inclusive of a proceeding by judgment creditors for a turnover of funds allegedly held by one of the parties, also deriving from the same relationship. There is no showing of prejudice to any party from consolidation of all these proceedings; indeed, a saving in time and effort for all the parties as well as the trial court would result as a substantial advantage to all concerned. The order of consolidation was a proper exercise of judicial discretion. A further provision of the order here reviewed granted a motion to vacate the default judgment suffered by defendant-respondent Inner Limits. It was shown on substantial evidence in the motion papers that the default was not deliberate, service having been made upon the Secretary of State without subsequent notification to the defendant, and that the defendant responded virtually immediately by motion to open the default upon advice of the existence of the judgment. (See CPLR 5015, subd [a], par 1.) Additionally, existence of a meritorious defense is indicated. The order was properly made. Concur— Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Kupferman, Lupiano and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 543, 382 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barazani-v-new-line-cinema-corp-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack