Mark G. v. Sabol

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mark G. v. Sabol

240 A.D.2d 185, 658 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5982

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

DecidedJune 5, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D.2d 185 (Mark G. v. Sabol) 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

Mark G. v. Sabol, 240 A.D.2d 185, 658 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5982 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered December 31, 1996, which, insofar as appealed from, denied, without prejudice and with leave to renew, plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss or sever the third-party action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion. The claims in the two actions are sufficiently intertwined that one trial is both appropriate and judicially efficient (see, Erbach Fin. Corp. v Royal Bank, 203 AD2d 80). Furthermore, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate prejudice with respect to any substantial right, or that the limited discovery sought by the third-party defendants would unduly delay the trial, particularly since the court addressed such contingency, stating that "if discovery is not completed by the time this action is to be tried then the plaintiffs may renew this application, which would be viewed favorably by the Court.” Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered December 31, 1996, which, insofar as appealed from, denied, without prejudice and with leave to renew, plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss or sever the third-party action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion. The claims in the two actions are sufficiently intertwined that one trial is both appropriate and judicially efficient (see, Erbach Fin. Corp. v Royal Bank, 203 AD2d 80). Furthermore, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate prejudice with respect to any substantial right, or that the limited discovery sought by the third-party defendants would unduly delay the trial, particularly since the court addressed such contingency, stating that "if discovery is not completed by the time this action is to be tried then the plaintiffs may renew this application, which would be viewed favorably by the Court.” Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 185, 658 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-g-v-sabol-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack