Fox v. Fox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fox v. Fox

44 A.D.3d 998, 843 N.Y.S.2d 846

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

DecidedOctober 30, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 44 A.D.3d 998 (Fox v. Fox) 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

Fox v. Fox, 44 A.D.3d 998, 843 N.Y.S.2d 846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and abuse of process (action No. 1), and an action for a divorce and ancillary relief (action No. 2), Nina Fox appeals from order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered May 13, 2005, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 602 to consolidate the two actions.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with costs to the respondent.

As the trial in the divorce action (action No. 2) has been completed and a judgment of divorce has been entered, the appeal from the instant order denying a motion to consolidate the divorce action with the action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and abuse of process has been rendered academic (see Penafiel v Puretz, 12 AD3d 431, 432 [2004]; Dillon v Hershon, 260 AD2d 425, 426 [1999]; Colonial Commercial Corp. v Breskel Assoc., 238 AD2d 539, 539-540 [1997]). Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Skelos and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and abuse of process (action No. 1), and an action for a divorce and ancillary relief (action No. 2), Nina Fox appeals from order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered May 13, 2005, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 602 to consolidate the two actions.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with costs to the respondent.

As the trial in the divorce action (action No. 2) has been completed and a judgment of divorce has been entered, the appeal from the instant order denying a motion to consolidate the divorce action with the action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and abuse of process has been rendered academic (see Penafiel v Puretz, 12 AD3d 431, 432 [2004]; Dillon v Hershon, 260 AD2d 425, 426 [1999]; Colonial Commercial Corp. v Breskel Assoc., 238 AD2d 539, 539-540 [1997]). Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Skelos and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 998, 843 N.Y.S.2d 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fox-v-fox-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack