Continental Building Co. v. Town of North Salem

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Continental Building Co. v. Town of North Salem

150 A.D.2d 518, 541 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6967

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

DecidedMay 15, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 150 A.D.2d 518 (Continental Building Co. v. Town of North Salem) 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

Continental Building Co. v. Town of North Salem, 150 A.D.2d 518, 541 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6967 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In two actions, inter alia, for judgments declaring that a zoning ordinance adopted by the Town Board of the Town of North Salem on March 10, 1987, is invalid, and to recover damages, the defendants in both actions appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered August 3, 1988, which denied their motion for joint trial of the two actions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Although the plaintiffs in both actions challenge the same zoning ordinance, and seek relief on similarly labeled theories, the focus of each action remains the extent to which the ordinance is invalid as applied to a particular plaintiff’s property. Further, action No. 1 is ready for trial, while disclosure in action No. 2 is in a preliminary phase. Since action No. 1 and action No. 2 are at markedly different procedural stages and since they concern different parcels of realty with different potential uses and different zoning histories, we cannot say that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it denied the motion for a joint trial (see, CPLR 602; see, Shackleford v Mitts, 110 AD2d 630; Steuerman v Broughton, 123 AD2d 681; cf., Mideal Homes Corp. v L & C Concrete Work, 90 AD2d 789). Lawrence, 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 two actions, inter alia, for judgments declaring that a zoning ordinance adopted by the Town Board of the Town of North Salem on March 10, 1987, is invalid, and to recover damages, the defendants in both actions appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered August 3, 1988, which denied their motion for joint trial of the two actions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Although the plaintiffs in both actions challenge the same zoning ordinance, and seek relief on similarly labeled theories, the focus of each action remains the extent to which the ordinance is invalid as applied to a particular plaintiff’s property. Further, action No. 1 is ready for trial, while disclosure in action No. 2 is in a preliminary phase. Since action No. 1 and action No. 2 are at markedly different procedural stages and since they concern different parcels of realty with different potential uses and different zoning histories, we cannot say that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it denied the motion for a joint trial (see, CPLR 602; see, Shackleford v Mitts, 110 AD2d 630; Steuerman v Broughton, 123 AD2d 681; cf., Mideal Homes Corp. v L & C Concrete Work, 90 AD2d 789). Lawrence, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A.D.2d 518, 541 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/continental-building-co-v-town-of-north-salem-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack