Cardella v. Wolfe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cardella v. Wolfe

129 A.D.2d 906, 514 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45580

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

DecidedApril 23, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 129 A.D.2d 906 (Cardella v. Wolfe) 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

Cardella v. Wolfe, 129 A.D.2d 906, 514 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45580 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Kane, J. P.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Torraca, J.), entered March 4, 1986 in Rensselaer County, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to stay a small claims matter in the Town of Schodack Justice Court pending determination of the instant Supreme Court action.

A review of the record fails to reveal that Special Term abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion for a stay of the small claims matter commenced by defendant in Town of Schodack Justice Court against plaintiffs. Contrary to plaintiffs’ assertion, the record does not indicate that the small claims matter and the instant Supreme Court action involve the same issues. The order should therefore be affirmed.

Order affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

Kane, J. P.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Torraca, J.), entered March 4, 1986 in Rensselaer County, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to stay a small claims matter in the Town of Schodack Justice Court pending determination of the instant Supreme Court action.

A review of the record fails to reveal that Special Term abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion for a stay of the small claims matter commenced by defendant in Town of Schodack Justice Court against plaintiffs. Contrary to plaintiffs’ assertion, the record does not indicate that the small claims matter and the instant Supreme Court action involve the same issues. The order should therefore be affirmed.

Order affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.2d 906, 514 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cardella-v-wolfe-nyappdiv-1987.