Borzilleri v. Brockway Motor Truck Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Borzilleri v. Brockway Motor Truck Corp.

124 Misc. 905, 210 N.Y.S. 17, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 811

DecidedMarch 17, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 124 Misc. 905 (Borzilleri v. Brockway Motor Truck Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Borzilleri v. Brockway Motor Truck Corp., 124 Misc. 905, 210 N.Y.S. 17, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 811 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Rodenbeck, J.:

The action in the City Court of Rochester should be consolidated with that in the Supreme Court. Both grew out of the same transaction, the collision of a motor truck and an automobile. The plaintiff in the Supreme Court action has a claim arising out of the collision in an amount which exceeds the jurisdiction of the City Court so that the plaintiff cannot interpose his counterclaim in that action. He should not be compelled to reduce his claim to the jurisdiction of that court. Two trials growing out of the same facts will be necessary unless the actions are consolidated and to avoid this waste of time the actions should be consolidated. Each party will have the burden of establishing his cause of action. There are also other defendants in the Supreme Court action who are not involved in the City Court action. The defendant gains nothing by a speedy trial in the City Court as it will be obliged to meet the plaintiff’s action in the Supreme Court when reached. All the issues can be tried out in the Supreme Court but not in the City Court and the case is a proper one for consolidation. (Civ. Frac. Act, §§ 96, 97.)

Motion granted.

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

Rodenbeck, J.:

The action in the City Court of Rochester should be consolidated with that in the Supreme Court. Both grew out of the same transaction, the collision of a motor truck and an automobile. The plaintiff in the Supreme Court action has a claim arising out of the collision in an amount which exceeds the jurisdiction of the City Court so that the plaintiff cannot interpose his counterclaim in that action. He should not be compelled to reduce his claim to the jurisdiction of that court. Two trials growing out of the same facts will be necessary unless the actions are consolidated and to avoid this waste of time the actions should be consolidated. Each party will have the burden of establishing his cause of action. There are also other defendants in the Supreme Court action who are not involved in the City Court action. The defendant gains nothing by a speedy trial in the City Court as it will be obliged to meet the plaintiff’s action in the Supreme Court when reached. All the issues can be tried out in the Supreme Court but not in the City Court and the case is a proper one for consolidation. (Civ. Frac. Act, §§ 96, 97.)

Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 Misc. 905, 210 N.Y.S. 17, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borzilleri-v-brockway-motor-truck-corp-nysupct-1925.