Henderson v. Wein Hardware Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Henderson v. Wein Hardware Co.

51 A.D.2d 696, 379 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11137

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 696 (Henderson v. Wein Hardware Co.) 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

Henderson v. Wein Hardware Co., 51 A.D.2d 696, 379 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered October 15, 1975, in the Supreme Court, New York County, unanimously affirmed, with $40 costs and disbursements to third-party defendant-respondent. The order appealed from severed the third-party indemnity action based on medical malpractice from the main action brought against defendants-appellants (appellants) to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by reason of the alleged negligence of appellants. Appellants urge that the court erred in severing the third-party action and referring it to a medical malpractice panel by reason of the court’s stated belief that it was mandated to do so, and that the main action and the third-party action should be tried together. While severance was not mandated, the court did not rest its action solely on that basis. The court expressed the desire to give plaintiff an early trial since a special preference had been given because of [697]*697age, and also the desire of the court to simplify issues for a jury. The action taken was a proper exercise of judicial discretion. The assertion of laches on the part of the third-party defendant as a possible barrier to severance has been examined and found to be without merit. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Kupferman, Lupiano, Birns and Lane, JJ.

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

Order entered October 15, 1975, in the Supreme Court, New York County, unanimously affirmed, with $40 costs and disbursements to third-party defendant-respondent. The order appealed from severed the third-party indemnity action based on medical malpractice from the main action brought against defendants-appellants (appellants) to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by reason of the alleged negligence of appellants. Appellants urge that the court erred in severing the third-party action and referring it to a medical malpractice panel by reason of the court’s stated belief that it was mandated to do so, and that the main action and the third-party action should be tried together. While severance was not mandated, the court did not rest its action solely on that basis. The court expressed the desire to give plaintiff an early trial since a special preference had been given because of [697]*697age, and also the desire of the court to simplify issues for a jury. The action taken was a proper exercise of judicial discretion. The assertion of laches on the part of the third-party defendant as a possible barrier to severance has been examined and found to be without merit. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Kupferman, Lupiano, Birns and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 696, 379 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-wein-hardware-co-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack