Gruber v. Alpert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gruber v. Alpert

257 A.D. 1007, 13 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8896

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

DecidedJune 30, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 257 A.D. 1007 (Gruber v. Alpert) 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

Gruber v. Alpert, 257 A.D. 1007, 13 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying motion for consolidation of two actions brought to recover damages arising out of the same collision between two motor vehicles, and for change of place of trial from Kings county to Ulster county, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs. In our opinion the controlling factor upon the facts in this case is that the causes of action arose in Ulster county. (Van Alstine v. Burt, 151 App. Div. 81; Mencke v. Goldberg, 208 id. 820; Woodland Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Barnett, 185 id. 572; Schulz v. Hudson Valley Railway Co., 147 id. 788, 789; Rose v. Town of Richmond, 214 id. 142,144.) The actions may be consolidated without prejudice to any substantial rights, and the codefendant Bessie Gibber in the action in which Anna Gruber and Leo Gruber are plaintiffs has expressly consented to the removal of these actions to Ulster comity. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying motion for consolidation of two actions brought to recover damages arising out of the same collision between two motor vehicles, and for change of place of trial from Kings county to Ulster county, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs. In our opinion the controlling factor upon the facts in this case is that the causes of action arose in Ulster county. (Van Alstine v. Burt, 151 App. Div. 81; Mencke v. Goldberg, 208 id. 820; Woodland Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Barnett, 185 id. 572; Schulz v. Hudson Valley Railway Co., 147 id. 788, 789; Rose v. Town of Richmond, 214 id. 142,144.) The actions may be consolidated without prejudice to any substantial rights, and the codefendant Bessie Gibber in the action in which Anna Gruber and Leo Gruber are plaintiffs has expressly consented to the removal of these actions to Ulster comity. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 1007, 13 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gruber-v-alpert-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack