Gordon v. Lifschitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gordon v. Lifschitz

10 A.D.2d 669, 196 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11562

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1960

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 A.D.2d 669 (Gordon v. Lifschitz) 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

Gordon v. Lifschitz, 10 A.D.2d 669, 196 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11562 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting respondent’s motion to consolidate appellant’s Municipal Court action to recover the balance due for professional services with respondent’s Supreme Court action to recover damages for malpractice unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to condition the consolidation on the payment into court by the respondent of the sum of $350 to secure the payment of the alleged fees due for professional services together with interest and costs thereon, and the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs to either party. Economy and the interests of justice will be served by consolidation of the actions (Civ. Prac. Act, § 97; Geller v. Ticktin, 6 Misc 2d 16 [Levy, M. M., J.]). Any incentive to frustrate or delay the payment of fees properly due will be eliminated by requiring the patient to make the deposit into court. (See, however, Murray v. Brown, 3 A D 2d 989; Perlman v. Perlman, 178 Misc. 223.) Settle order. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order granting respondent’s motion to consolidate appellant’s Municipal Court action to recover the balance due for professional services with respondent’s Supreme Court action to recover damages for malpractice unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to condition the consolidation on the payment into court by the respondent of the sum of $350 to secure the payment of the alleged fees due for professional services together with interest and costs thereon, and the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs to either party. Economy and the interests of justice will be served by consolidation of the actions (Civ. Prac. Act, § 97; Geller v. Ticktin, 6 Misc 2d 16 [Levy, M. M., J.]). Any incentive to frustrate or delay the payment of fees properly due will be eliminated by requiring the patient to make the deposit into court. (See, however, Murray v. Brown, 3 A D 2d 989; Perlman v. Perlman, 178 Misc. 223.) Settle order. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 669, 196 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-lifschitz-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack