Jacobs v. Grant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jacobs v. Grant

89 A.D.3d 1063, 933 N.Y.2d 575

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 29, 2011·Published

Opinion

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that [1064]*1064branch of his motion which was to consolidate this action with a summary proceeding entitled Matter of Hawthorne Gardens Owners Corp. v Jacobs, pending in the District Court, Nassau County, under index No. SP 004412/09 (see CPLR 602 [a]; 107-48 Queens Blvd. Holding Corp. v ABC Brokerage, 238 AD2d 557 [1997]; Titleserv, Inc. v Zenobio, 210 AD2d 310, 311 [1994]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, PJ., Skelos, Balkin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that [1064]*1064branch of his motion which was to consolidate this action with a summary proceeding entitled Matter of Hawthorne Gardens Owners Corp. v Jacobs, pending in the District Court, Nassau County, under index No. SP 004412/09 (see CPLR 602 [a]; 107-48 Queens Blvd. Holding Corp. v ABC Brokerage, 238 AD2d 557 [1997]; Titleserv, Inc. v Zenobio, 210 AD2d 310, 311 [1994]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, PJ., Skelos, Balkin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Jacobs v. Grant, 89 A.D.3d 1063, 933 N.Y.2d 575 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

89 A.D.3d 1063 (Jacobs v. Grant) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related