Meyer v. Merritt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meyer v. Merritt

7 A.D.2d 917, 182 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10125

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.2d 917 (Meyer v. Merritt) 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

Meyer v. Merritt, 7 A.D.2d 917, 182 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order (1) granting the motion of respondents Addie M. Merritt and Philip Merritt to transfer Action No. 5 from the County Court, Westchester County, and Action No. 6 from the City Court of New Rochelle to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, in which county Actions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are pending, (2) consolidating the six actions, and (3) ordering that respondent Herman Meyer, the plaintiff in Action No. 1, which was the first action instituted, shall have the right to open and close. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondents Addie M. Merritt and Philip Merritt. The discretion of the [918]*918Special Term was properly exercised (Littman v. JacobowsJci, 2 A D 2d 898; Shea V. Benjamin, 275 App. Div. 1003; Maiorano v. William Sherman, Inc., 196 Mise. 659). Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order (1) granting the motion of respondents Addie M. Merritt and Philip Merritt to transfer Action No. 5 from the County Court, Westchester County, and Action No. 6 from the City Court of New Rochelle to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, in which county Actions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are pending, (2) consolidating the six actions, and (3) ordering that respondent Herman Meyer, the plaintiff in Action No. 1, which was the first action instituted, shall have the right to open and close. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondents Addie M. Merritt and Philip Merritt. The discretion of the [918]*918Special Term was properly exercised (Littman v. JacobowsJci, 2 A D 2d 898; Shea V. Benjamin, 275 App. Div. 1003; Maiorano v. William Sherman, Inc., 196 Mise. 659). Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 917, 182 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-v-merritt-nyappdiv-1959.