Horowitz v. Karron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Horowitz v. Karron

5 A.D.2d 998, 173 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6304

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

DecidedApril 14, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.2d 998 (Horowitz v. Karron) 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

Horowitz v. Karron, 5 A.D.2d 998, 173 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Four actions, two in the Supreme Court, Putnam County, and two in the Supreme Court, New York County, were instituted as the result of a collision between two motor vehicles in Putnam County. The two New York County actions were consolidated, as were the two Putnam County actions. The instant motion by appellants, made thereafter, to consolidate the four actions for trial in Putnam County, was denied. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted. In our opinion, respondent Bloom failed to show that such consolidation will prejudice a substantial right. (Cf. Shea v. Benjamin, 275 App. Div. 1003; Kelly v. John Vogel, Inc., 279 App. Div. 797; Littman v. Jacobowski, 2 A D 2d 898.) The order to be entered hereon may provide that respondent Bloom, as plaintiff in Action No. 3, which action was first commenced, may have the right to open and close. (Kelly v. John Vogel, Inc., supra; Lehman v. Dictograph Prods., 5 A D 2d 688.)

Nolan, P. J., Wenzel and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Beldoek and Kleinfeld, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm. Settle order on notice.

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

Four actions, two in the Supreme Court, Putnam County, and two in the Supreme Court, New York County, were instituted as the result of a collision between two motor vehicles in Putnam County. The two New York County actions were consolidated, as were the two Putnam County actions. The instant motion by appellants, made thereafter, to consolidate the four actions for trial in Putnam County, was denied. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted. In our opinion, respondent Bloom failed to show that such consolidation will prejudice a substantial right. (Cf. Shea v. Benjamin, 275 App. Div. 1003; Kelly v. John Vogel, Inc., 279 App. Div. 797; Littman v. Jacobowski, 2 A D 2d 898.) The order to be entered hereon may provide that respondent Bloom, as plaintiff in Action No. 3, which action was first commenced, may have the right to open and close. (Kelly v. John Vogel, Inc., supra; Lehman v. Dictograph Prods., 5 A D 2d 688.)

Nolan, P. J., Wenzel and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Beldoek and Kleinfeld, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 998, 173 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horowitz-v-karron-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack