Hercz v. Geo. W. Millar & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hercz v. Geo. W. Millar & Co.

10 A.D.2d 611, 196 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11790

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 611 (Hercz v. Geo. W. Millar & 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

Hercz v. Geo. W. Millar & Co., 10 A.D.2d 611, 196 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11790 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and on the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent Hercz, to the extent of denying consolidation and ordering joint trial. This is not an appropriate case for organic consolidation. The claims by the manufacturer against the supplier necessarily differ from those of its customer against it, for “ Even if all the claims arose out of the same defects, the warranties made by each of the parties differed” (Texilon Co. v. Kaiserman, 3 A D 2d 743). While consolidation is not appropriate, it would appear that a joint trial would be in the interest of justice and that no substantial right will be prejudiced by having a joint trial (Civ. Prae. Act, § 96-a). Settle order. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, M. M. Frank and Yalente, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and on the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent Hercz, to the extent of denying consolidation and ordering joint trial. This is not an appropriate case for organic consolidation. The claims by the manufacturer against the supplier necessarily differ from those of its customer against it, for “ Even if all the claims arose out of the same defects, the warranties made by each of the parties differed” (Texilon Co. v. Kaiserman, 3 A D 2d 743). While consolidation is not appropriate, it would appear that a joint trial would be in the interest of justice and that no substantial right will be prejudiced by having a joint trial (Civ. Prae. Act, § 96-a). Settle order. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, M. M. Frank and Yalente, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 611, 196 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hercz-v-geo-w-millar-co-nyappdiv-1960.