Buzzell v. Mills

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buzzell v. Mills

32 A.D.2d 897, 301 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3447

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

DecidedJuly 3, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 897 (Buzzell v. Mills) 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

Buzzell v. Mills, 32 A.D.2d 897, 301 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3447 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered April 9, 1969, unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to defendant-respondent. The cross claim is sufficient as a pleading. (See CPLR 3014; Lane v. Mercury Record Corp., 21 A D 2d 602, 605, affd. 18 N Y 2d 889; Foley v. D’Agostino, 21 A D 2d 60.) This determination is without prejudice to an application at Special Term for a stay of proceedings on the cross claim, including disclosure proceedings thereon and the trial thereof, pending the trial of the main action and pending the accounting, if any, directed therein. Such application may be justified on the basis of the well-settled rule that a subsequent action may be stayed pending the trial of a prior action between the same parties where there are overlapping issues and the determination of the prior action may dispose of or limit issues which are involved in the subsequent action. (See 3 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, §§ 22:15, 22:16; Trieber v. Hopson, 27 A D 2d 151; Hunter v. Hunter, 10 A D 2d 937; CPLR 2201). Concur—■ Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered April 9, 1969, unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to defendant-respondent. The cross claim is sufficient as a pleading. (See CPLR 3014; Lane v. Mercury Record Corp., 21 A D 2d 602, 605, affd. 18 N Y 2d 889; Foley v. D’Agostino, 21 A D 2d 60.) This determination is without prejudice to an application at Special Term for a stay of proceedings on the cross claim, including disclosure proceedings thereon and the trial thereof, pending the trial of the main action and pending the accounting, if any, directed therein. Such application may be justified on the basis of the well-settled rule that a subsequent action may be stayed pending the trial of a prior action between the same parties where there are overlapping issues and the determination of the prior action may dispose of or limit issues which are involved in the subsequent action. (See 3 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, §§ 22:15, 22:16; Trieber v. Hopson, 27 A D 2d 151; Hunter v. Hunter, 10 A D 2d 937; CPLR 2201). Concur—■ Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 897, 301 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buzzell-v-mills-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack