Healy v. Dentcare Delivery System, Inc.

129 A.D.2d 557, 514 N.Y.S.2d 52, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45228
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 6, 1987·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Isseks, J.), dated February 24, 1986, as granted the defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents Dentcare Delivery Systems, Inc., Donovan and Feinberg.

In view of the fact that a pending action existed between the same parties for essentially the same relief and involving the same actionable wrong (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [4]; Siegel, NY Prac § 262), Special Term did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint herein. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein, Fiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

Healy v. Dentcare Delivery System, Inc., 129 A.D.2d 557, 514 N.Y.S.2d 52, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45228 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

129 A.D.2d 557 (Healy v. Dentcare Delivery System, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

GSL Enterprises, Inc. v. Citibank, N. A.
155 A.D.2d 247 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)