Kubran v. Acme Brick Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kubran v. Acme Brick Corp.

268 A.D. 1046, 52 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5433

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

DecidedJanuary 2, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 268 A.D. 1046 (Kubran v. Acme Brick Corp.) 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

Kubran v. Acme Brick Corp., 268 A.D. 1046, 52 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5433 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from order denying motion to consolidate two actions based on a collision of two trucks on a highway in Rockland County. Defendants in both actions are the same. A personal injury action [1047]*1047was brought by one plaintiff in Kings County, and a property damage action was brought by his employer in Rockland County. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements against the Nyack Express Company, and the motion granted, without costs. The fact that the parties to the actions are different does not bar consolidation. (Ghemello V. Endlich, 236 N. Y. 653; Gibbs v. Sohol, 216 App. Div. 260; Dunn v. Mason, 7 Hill 154.) Both actions are based upon the same occurrence and the witnesses on the issue of liability will be the same. The case can be tried as soon in one county as in the other. The venue for the consolidated action is fixed in Kings County. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Lewis, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal from order denying motion to consolidate two actions based on a collision of two trucks on a highway in Rockland County. Defendants in both actions are the same. A personal injury action [1047]*1047was brought by one plaintiff in Kings County, and a property damage action was brought by his employer in Rockland County. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements against the Nyack Express Company, and the motion granted, without costs. The fact that the parties to the actions are different does not bar consolidation. (Ghemello V. Endlich, 236 N. Y. 653; Gibbs v. Sohol, 216 App. Div. 260; Dunn v. Mason, 7 Hill 154.) Both actions are based upon the same occurrence and the witnesses on the issue of liability will be the same. The case can be tried as soon in one county as in the other. The venue for the consolidated action is fixed in Kings County. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Lewis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D. 1046, 52 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kubran-v-acme-brick-corp-nyappdiv-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack