Martin v. Bull

236 A.D. 637, 260 N.Y.S. 814, 1932 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6058
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 9, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
236 A.D. 637, 260 N.Y.S. 814, 1932 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6058, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-bull-nyappdiv-1932.