E. F. Hutton & Co. v. Tretiak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

E. F. Hutton & Co. v. Tretiak

140 A.D.2d 294, 528 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4685

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 2, 1988·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

[295]*295The Supreme Court, Nassau County, properly exercised its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion to consolidate and we perceive no reason to substitute our discretion for that of the Supreme Court. The two actions involve entirely separate and distinct transactions and the proof relative to each lawsuit will not overlap in any substantial respect (see, Aluminum Mill Supply Corp. v Skyview Metals, 117 AD2d 765, 767; JM Mechanical Corp. v Washington Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 80 AD2d 884, 886). Moreover, the plaintiff in this action would suffer prejudice if the two actions were consolidated. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

[295]*295The Supreme Court, Nassau County, properly exercised its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion to consolidate and we perceive no reason to substitute our discretion for that of the Supreme Court. The two actions involve entirely separate and distinct transactions and the proof relative to each lawsuit will not overlap in any substantial respect (see, Aluminum Mill Supply Corp. v Skyview Metals, 117 AD2d 765, 767; JM Mechanical Corp. v Washington Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 80 AD2d 884, 886). Moreover, the plaintiff in this action would suffer prejudice if the two actions were consolidated. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.

E. F. Hutton & Co. v. Tretiak, 140 A.D.2d 294, 528 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

140 A.D.2d 294 (E. F. Hutton & Co. v. Tretiak) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related