Calcanes v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Calcanes v. City of New York

154 A.D.2d 327, 545 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12237

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 154 A.D.2d 327 (Calcanes v. City of New York) 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

Calcanes v. City of New York, 154 A.D.2d 327, 545 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12237 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the fifth-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Duberstein, J.), dated September 6, 1988, which denied its motion to dismiss or sever the fifth-party action from the main action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court’s discretion in granting a severance should be exercised sparingly (Shanley v Callanan Indus., 54 NY2d 52, 57). Where, as here, the factual and legal issues raised in the fifth-party action are not overly complex and are closely related to the questions involved in the main action, and the delay in initiating the fifth-party action is attributable to the difficulties • inherent in identifying individual material suppliers in a large and complex construction project, the denial of a severance was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Rago v Nationwide Ins. Co., 110 AD2d 831). Eiber, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, 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 fifth-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Duberstein, J.), dated September 6, 1988, which denied its motion to dismiss or sever the fifth-party action from the main action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court’s discretion in granting a severance should be exercised sparingly (Shanley v Callanan Indus., 54 NY2d 52, 57). Where, as here, the factual and legal issues raised in the fifth-party action are not overly complex and are closely related to the questions involved in the main action, and the delay in initiating the fifth-party action is attributable to the difficulties • inherent in identifying individual material suppliers in a large and complex construction project, the denial of a severance was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Rago v Nationwide Ins. Co., 110 AD2d 831). Eiber, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 327, 545 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calcanes-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack