McDutchess Builders, Inc v. Dutchess Knolls, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McDutchess Builders, Inc v. Dutchess Knolls, Inc.

244 A.D.2d 534, 665 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11857

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 534 (McDutchess Builders, Inc v. Dutchess Knolls, Inc.) 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

McDutchess Builders, Inc v. Dutchess Knolls, Inc., 244 A.D.2d 534, 665 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated December 10, 1996, which granted the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) to consolidate this action with an action to recover damages for legal malpractice entitled McDutchess Bldrs. v John A. Porco, P. C., Index No. 1460/95, pending in the Supreme Court, Dutchess County.

[535]*535Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A motion to consolidate actions pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by a party opposing the motion, consolidation should be granted where common questions of law or fact exist (see, Rodgers v Worrell, 214 AD2d 553). In this case, we find no basis to disturb the Supreme Court’s decision to consolidate the actions. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ,, concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated December 10, 1996, which granted the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) to consolidate this action with an action to recover damages for legal malpractice entitled McDutchess Bldrs. v John A. Porco, P. C., Index No. 1460/95, pending in the Supreme Court, Dutchess County.

[535]*535Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A motion to consolidate actions pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by a party opposing the motion, consolidation should be granted where common questions of law or fact exist (see, Rodgers v Worrell, 214 AD2d 553). In this case, we find no basis to disturb the Supreme Court’s decision to consolidate the actions. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ,, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 534, 665 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdutchess-builders-inc-v-dutchess-knolls-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack