Corporate Interiors, Inc. v. Emmanuel Pappas

297 A.D.2d 306, 746 N.Y.2d 261, 746 N.Y.S.2d 261, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7932
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 12, 2002·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The counterclaims asserted by Corporate Interiors, Inc. (hereinafter Corporate), in the action brought by Skyline Partition Systems, Inc. (hereinafter Skyline), against it raise issues of law and fact which are identical to issues it raises in this action against the appellants. In view of the foregoing, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny consolidation (see Flaherty v RCP Assoc., 208 AD2d 496, 498).

Further, the appellants should have been granted leave to serve a proposed amended answer to respond to allegations raised by Corporate that the appellants and Skyline conspired with each other to commit tortious conduct (see CPLR 3025 [b]). Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

Corporate Interiors, Inc. v. Emmanuel Pappas, 297 A.D.2d 306, 746 N.Y.2d 261, 746 N.Y.S.2d 261, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7932 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

297 A.D.2d 306 (Corporate Interiors, Inc. v. Emmanuel Pappas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dukhvalov v. Pshierer
15 A.D.3d 334 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)