Goldman v. Rosen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldman v. Rosen

15 A.D.3d 321, 789 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1939

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 321 (Goldman v. Rosen) 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

Goldman v. Rosen, 15 A.D.3d 321, 789 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1939 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered October 4, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendant Rosen’s motion to consolidate this action with the summary proceeding pending between the parties in Civil Court, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to consolidate this Supreme Court action, which is not yet at the discovery stage, with a pending Civil Court summary proceeding that has already been placed on the trial calendar (see Barnes v Cathers & Dembrosky, 5 AD3d 122 [2004]; Abrams v Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 1 AD3d 118, 119 [2003]. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered October 4, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendant Rosen’s motion to consolidate this action with the summary proceeding pending between the parties in Civil Court, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to consolidate this Supreme Court action, which is not yet at the discovery stage, with a pending Civil Court summary proceeding that has already been placed on the trial calendar (see Barnes v Cathers & Dembrosky, 5 AD3d 122 [2004]; Abrams v Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 1 AD3d 118, 119 [2003]. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 321, 789 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldman-v-rosen-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack