Martin v. Bull

236 A.D. 637, 260 N.Y.S. 814, 1932 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6058
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 9, 1932·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff is entitled to a consolidation of these actions, so that the whole matter may be disposed of at one trial. If the plaintiff herein should successfully establish the counterclaim which was interposed in the Municipal Court action in which she is defendant, the recovery would be limited to the sum of $1,000 (Mun. Ct. Code, § 86).

Where it is apparent that there is no merit in a counterclaim, an application to consolidate should be denied. However, on the record before us, we cannot say that this is such a case. At the trial the defendant should be given the right to open and close.

The order should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion to consolidate granted, with ten. dollars costs.

Present — Finch, P. J., Merrell, Martin, Sherman and Townley, JJ.

Order reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to consolidate granted, with ten dollars costs.

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

Martin v. Bull, 236 A.D. 637, 260 N.Y.S. 814, 1932 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6058 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

236 A.D. 637 (Martin v. Bull) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

2525-7th Ave. Corp. v. Knight
260 A.D. 733 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1940)
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. McGuire & Co.
164 Misc. 120 (New York Supreme Court, 1937)
Hester v. Bull
236 A.D. 638 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1932)