Jacobson v. Harte & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jacobson v. Harte & Co.

23 A.D.2d 843, 259 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4124

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

DecidedMay 20, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 843 (Jacobson v. Harte & 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

Jacobson v. Harte & Co., 23 A.D.2d 843, 259 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered November 12, 1964, upon the motion of plaintiffs-respondents in Action No. 1 and third-party defendants-[844]*844respondents in Action No. 2 and upon the cross motion of defendant and third-party plaintiff-respondent in Action No. 2, directing a joint trial of said actions and of Action No. 3 and staying the trial of Action No. 1, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion and cross motion denied. Certain issues in Action No. 2 — -which the cross movant itself refers to as “a very complicated, time-consuming case ” — differ from those in the other actions, and in our opinion the probability of confusion attendant upon a joint trial may not be discounted. It is noted that the instant motions were not undertaken until Action No. 1 was ready for trial. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order entered November 12, 1964, upon the motion of plaintiffs-respondents in Action No. 1 and third-party defendants-[844]*844respondents in Action No. 2 and upon the cross motion of defendant and third-party plaintiff-respondent in Action No. 2, directing a joint trial of said actions and of Action No. 3 and staying the trial of Action No. 1, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion and cross motion denied. Certain issues in Action No. 2 — -which the cross movant itself refers to as “a very complicated, time-consuming case ” — differ from those in the other actions, and in our opinion the probability of confusion attendant upon a joint trial may not be discounted. It is noted that the instant motions were not undertaken until Action No. 1 was ready for trial. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 843, 259 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobson-v-harte-co-nyappdiv-1965.