Freeman v. Kra

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Freeman v. Kra

54 A.D.2d 871, 388 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14652

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 871 (Freeman v. Kra) 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

Freeman v. Kra, 54 A.D.2d 871, 388 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 4, 1976, denying plaintiffs motion, inter alia, for an order consolidating the within action with another pending in Queens County, and the order of said court, entered May 26, 1976, denying plaintiffs renewal motion, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Under the circumstances presented, we find no abuse of discretion by Special Term. While, technically, jurisdiction was first invoked in New York County, plaintiff served only a summons without notice. Shortly thereafter, defendant commenced an action in Queens County by service of a summons and complaint. The Supreme Court in Queens County has now consolidated these two actions and set the case down for trial. If plaintiff still desires a reference, he may seek such relief in the pending consolidated action. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Birns and Nunez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 4, 1976, denying plaintiffs motion, inter alia, for an order consolidating the within action with another pending in Queens County, and the order of said court, entered May 26, 1976, denying plaintiffs renewal motion, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Under the circumstances presented, we find no abuse of discretion by Special Term. While, technically, jurisdiction was first invoked in New York County, plaintiff served only a summons without notice. Shortly thereafter, defendant commenced an action in Queens County by service of a summons and complaint. The Supreme Court in Queens County has now consolidated these two actions and set the case down for trial. If plaintiff still desires a reference, he may seek such relief in the pending consolidated action. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Birns and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 871, 388 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freeman-v-kra-nyappdiv-1976.