MediaAmerica, Inc. v. Rudnick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

MediaAmerica, Inc. v. Rudnick

156 A.D.2d 174, 548 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15291

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 156 A.D.2d 174 (MediaAmerica, Inc. v. Rudnick) 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

MediaAmerica, Inc. v. Rudnick, 156 A.D.2d 174, 548 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Andrew R. Tyler, J.), entered May 2, 1989, which denied plaintiffs motion, pursuant to CPLR 3213, for summary judgment in lieu of complaint and dismissed this action, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4), on the ground of the pendency of another action involving the same parties and cause, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to vacate the dismissal of this action and to sua sponte consolidate this action with the prior action pending in New York County, entitled Thomas Rudnick v MediaAmerica, Inc. (index No. 8156/1988), and as so modified, the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs.

MediaAmerica’s present motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint seeks recovery based upon defendant’s default on two payments due under a nonnegotiable promissory note, dated August 14, 1987, while its first counterclaim in the prior pending action seeks substantially the same relief based upon the termination of defendant’s employment. Since both actions involve the same subject matter and parties, the more appropriate action is consolidation rather than dismissal. (See, 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ ¶ Prac If 3211.24; Siegel, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3211:19; Byer, Civil Motions § 316.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Asch, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Andrew R. Tyler, J.), entered May 2, 1989, which denied plaintiffs motion, pursuant to CPLR 3213, for summary judgment in lieu of complaint and dismissed this action, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4), on the ground of the pendency of another action involving the same parties and cause, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to vacate the dismissal of this action and to sua sponte consolidate this action with the prior action pending in New York County, entitled Thomas Rudnick v MediaAmerica, Inc. (index No. 8156/1988), and as so modified, the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs.

MediaAmerica’s present motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint seeks recovery based upon defendant’s default on two payments due under a nonnegotiable promissory note, dated August 14, 1987, while its first counterclaim in the prior pending action seeks substantially the same relief based upon the termination of defendant’s employment. Since both actions involve the same subject matter and parties, the more appropriate action is consolidation rather than dismissal. (See, 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ ¶ Prac If 3211.24; Siegel, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3211:19; Byer, Civil Motions § 316.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Asch, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 174, 548 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mediaamerica-inc-v-rudnick-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack