Corporate Interiors, Inc. v. Emmanuel Pappas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

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

DecidedAugust 12, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 306 (Corporate Interiors, Inc. v. Emmanuel Pappas) 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 306, 746 N.Y.2d 261, 746 N.Y.S.2d 261, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corporate-interiors-inc-v-emmanuel-pappas-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack