Casini v. Katz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Casini v. Katz

259 A.D.2d 723, 685 N.Y.S.2d 633

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

DecidedMarch 29, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 723 (Casini v. Katz) 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

Casini v. Katz, 259 A.D.2d 723, 685 N.Y.S.2d 633 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries (Actions Nos. 1 and 2), and a third action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the defendants in that action are obligated to defend and [724]*724indemnify Michael Katz in Action No. 1 (Action No. 3), the defendants in Action No. 3 appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated February 20, 1998, which, in effect, granted the motion of Michael Katz, the plaintiff in Action Nos. 2 and 3, to consolidate Action No. 3, pending in Nassau County, with Action Nos. 1 and 2, pending in Queens County, to the extent of directing that Action No. 3 be transferred to Queens County to proceed to a separate trial under the supervision of the same Judge.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not err in directing that all three actions proceed to trial under the supervision of the same Judge (cf., McDutchess Bldrs. v Dutchess Knolls, 244 AD2d 534; Rodgers v Worrell, 214 AD2d 553). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries (Actions Nos. 1 and 2), and a third action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the defendants in that action are obligated to defend and [724]*724indemnify Michael Katz in Action No. 1 (Action No. 3), the defendants in Action No. 3 appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated February 20, 1998, which, in effect, granted the motion of Michael Katz, the plaintiff in Action Nos. 2 and 3, to consolidate Action No. 3, pending in Nassau County, with Action Nos. 1 and 2, pending in Queens County, to the extent of directing that Action No. 3 be transferred to Queens County to proceed to a separate trial under the supervision of the same Judge.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not err in directing that all three actions proceed to trial under the supervision of the same Judge (cf., McDutchess Bldrs. v Dutchess Knolls, 244 AD2d 534; Rodgers v Worrell, 214 AD2d 553). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 723, 685 N.Y.S.2d 633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casini-v-katz-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack