Jackson v. Marcus

18 A.D.2d 1111, 238 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4006
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 4, 1963
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 18 A.D.2d 1111 (Jackson v. Marcus) 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
Jackson v. Marcus, 18 A.D.2d 1111, 238 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4006 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Opinion

In separate actions for the foreclosure of three mortgages, defendant’s answer in each case admits the indebtedness alleged, and asserts a cause of action which constitutes a counterclaim against plaintiff and is denominated a third-party complaint as against another property owner, alleging a conspiracy between plaintiff and the so-called third-party defendant to permit the discharge of sewage into a lake upon which defendant’s lands abut. Additionally, in case No. 3794 defendant-appellant interposes a counterclaim for breach of covenant against incumbrances and, upon this appeal, respondent has consented that this issue be tried with those in the foreclosure action; and in case No. 4268 an additional counterclaim, alleging an agreement to release certain lots, is interposed but is not before us. We perceive no sound ground for disturbing the exercise of the Special Term’s discretion in severing the conspiracy causes of action from the foreclosure [1112]*1112actions. (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 262, 264,193-a.) Our decision upon this appellant’s appeal in a Surrogate’s Court proceeding (Matter of Jackson, 18 A D 2d 751) has some bearing upon appellant’s contention here that the effect of the severance would be to impair the collectibility of any judgment or judgments recovered by him in these actions. Orders in eases Nos. 4268 and 4269 affirmed, with $10 costs. Order in case No. 3794 modified so as to provide that the motion insofar as addressed to the first counterclaim be denied and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 A.D.2d 1111, 238 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-marcus-nyappdiv-1963.