Halpern v. Rodway

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Halpern v. Rodway

3 A.D.2d 941, 163 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5307

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

DecidedMay 27, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 3 A.D.2d 941 (Halpern v. Rodway) 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

Halpern v. Rodway, 3 A.D.2d 941, 163 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5307 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action pending in Queens County to recover damages for the alleged breach of a contract, the appeal is from so much of an order as denied appellants’ cross motion to consolidate the action with another action pending in Rockland County, between the same parties, to recover damages for the alleged breach of the same contract. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. There was no abuse of discretion by Special Term in denying the cross motion, in view of the fact that the trial of the Queens County action is imminent, while considerable time must elapse 'before the Rockland County action could be reached for trial. Under the circumstances, consolidation would prejudice a substantial right of the respondent as plaintiff in the Queens County action (ef. Lichtenstein v. Lapadula <& ■Villani Trucking Corp., 283 App. Div. 721; Miro v. Gottheim, 285 App. Div. 834). Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Hallman and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action pending in Queens County to recover damages for the alleged breach of a contract, the appeal is from so much of an order as denied appellants’ cross motion to consolidate the action with another action pending in Rockland County, between the same parties, to recover damages for the alleged breach of the same contract. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. There was no abuse of discretion by Special Term in denying the cross motion, in view of the fact that the trial of the Queens County action is imminent, while considerable time must elapse 'before the Rockland County action could be reached for trial. Under the circumstances, consolidation would prejudice a substantial right of the respondent as plaintiff in the Queens County action (ef. Lichtenstein v. Lapadula <& ■Villani Trucking Corp., 283 App. Div. 721; Miro v. Gottheim, 285 App. Div. 834). Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Hallman and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 941, 163 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halpern-v-rodway-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack