Kaplan v. Village of Ossining

35 A.D.3d 816, 827 N.Y.S.2d 278
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 26, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 35 A.D.3d 816 (Kaplan v. Village of Ossining) 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
Kaplan v. Village of Ossining, 35 A.D.3d 816, 827 N.Y.S.2d 278 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered November 18, 2005, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action and granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion pursuant to CELR 3217 (b) to voluntarily discontinue that cause of action without prejudice.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action is granted, and the cross motion to voluntarily discontinue the third cause of action without prejudice is denied.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for [817]*817summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action (see CPLR 3212 [e]) and granting the plaintiffs’ cross motion to voluntarily discontinue that cause of action without prejudice (see CPLR 3217 [b]). The record supports a finding that the plaintiffs were merely attempting to circumvent the effect of a preceding conditional order of preclusion (see Venture I, Inc. v Voutsinas, 8 AD3d 475 [2004]). “A plaintiff should not be permitted to discontinue an action without prejudice for the purpose of avoiding an adverse order of the court” (Casey v Custom Crushing & Materials, 309 AD2d 726, 727 [2003]; see Schachter v Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 21 AD3d 1024, 1025 [2005]; cf. Mathias v Daily News, 301 AD2d 503, 504 [2003]; St. Pierre v Ostreich, 123 AD2d 857 [1986]). Crane, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Fulton View Realty, LLC v. Reddy
161 N.Y.S.3d 688 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Onewest Bank, FSB v. Jach
2020 NY Slip Op 1357 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Yonkers Firefighters v. City of Yonkers
2018 NY Slip Op 6751 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Blauvelt Mini-Mall, Inc. v. Town of Orangetown
2018 NY Slip Op 1051 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Catherine Commons, LLC v. Town of Orangetown
2018 NY Slip Op 287 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Citibank, N.A. v. Bravo
55 Misc. 3d 879 (New York Supreme Court, 2017)
Marinelli v. Wimmer
139 A.D.3d 914 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Montalto v. Colgate Scaffolding Corp.
128 A.D.3d 916 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Baez v. Parkway Mobile Homes, Inc.
125 A.D.3d 905 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Rothenberg v. Congregation Anshei Sfard
125 A.D.3d 631 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Turco v. Turco
117 A.D.3d 719 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Hurrell-Harring v. State
112 A.D.3d 1213 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Bisceglie
109 A.D.3d 874 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Phoenix Mechanical Corp. v. London
38 Misc. 3d 45 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, Inc. v. Oxford Health Plans (NY), Inc.
58 A.D.3d 686 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Pearson v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
43 A.D.3d 92 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 A.D.3d 816, 827 N.Y.S.2d 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaplan-v-village-of-ossining-nyappdiv-2006.