Fancy Industries, Inc. v. Commerce Labor Industry Corp. of Kings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fancy Industries, Inc. v. Commerce Labor Industry Corp. of Kings

88 A.D.2d 581, 450 N.Y.S.2d 433, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16747

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

DecidedMay 3, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 581 (Fancy Industries, Inc. v. Commerce Labor Industry Corp. of Kings) 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

Fancy Industries, Inc. v. Commerce Labor Industry Corp. of Kings, 88 A.D.2d 581, 450 N.Y.S.2d 433, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16747 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a declaratory judgment action, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated March 11, 1980, as denied its motion to enjoin defendant from taking other proceedings pending determination of this action, and provided that all disclosure proceedings be conducted and completed, and the action be set down on the Trial Term Calendar, by and for a date certain. Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance herewith. The order directing a trial of the action immediately after the completion of expedited disclosure proceedings is a proper exercise of the court’s discretion. The defendant’s statement in its brief on appeal, that it “has no objection to this action being tried in the Supreme Court ifJustice Vaccaro’s Order expediting discovery and providing for an immediate trial is affirmed” (emphasis in original), has made consideration of the denial of the plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction unnecessary. The other issues raised by the plaintiff are dehors the record and have not been considered by us. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Thompson and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— In a declaratory judgment action, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated March 11, 1980, as denied its motion to enjoin defendant from taking other proceedings pending determination of this action, and provided that all disclosure proceedings be conducted and completed, and the action be set down on the Trial Term Calendar, by and for a date certain. Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance herewith. The order directing a trial of the action immediately after the completion of expedited disclosure proceedings is a proper exercise of the court’s discretion. The defendant’s statement in its brief on appeal, that it “has no objection to this action being tried in the Supreme Court ifJustice Vaccaro’s Order expediting discovery and providing for an immediate trial is affirmed” (emphasis in original), has made consideration of the denial of the plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction unnecessary. The other issues raised by the plaintiff are dehors the record and have not been considered by us. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Thompson and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 581, 450 N.Y.S.2d 433, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fancy-industries-inc-v-commerce-labor-industry-corp-of-kings-nyappdiv-1982.