Moore v. Parks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. Parks

29 A.D.2d 912, 289 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4350

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 912 (Moore v. Parks) 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

Moore v. Parks, 29 A.D.2d 912, 289 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4350 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

—■ Order unanimously reversed and motion granted, without costs, upon condition that, prior to trial, the coexecutors of William E. Moore deceased .be substituted as plaintiffs in the actions against the insurance companies. All pending stays dissolved. Memorandum: Sound discretion would have prompted the granting of the motion. Upon the total submission of all of the issues in the four actions, there will be no problems so “ confusing and burdensome to the trial jury ” as to preclude such procedure. (Quotation from decision of Special Term Justice.) Nor does the fact that one action is in negligence and three based on contracts of insurance control. There are many common issues. Upon application, an order of preference should be granted for the trial of the actions. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term denying motion for a joint trial.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Marsh, Witmer and Henry, JJ.

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

—■ Order unanimously reversed and motion granted, without costs, upon condition that, prior to trial, the coexecutors of William E. Moore deceased .be substituted as plaintiffs in the actions against the insurance companies. All pending stays dissolved. Memorandum: Sound discretion would have prompted the granting of the motion. Upon the total submission of all of the issues in the four actions, there will be no problems so “ confusing and burdensome to the trial jury ” as to preclude such procedure. (Quotation from decision of Special Term Justice.) Nor does the fact that one action is in negligence and three based on contracts of insurance control. There are many common issues. Upon application, an order of preference should be granted for the trial of the actions. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term denying motion for a joint trial.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Marsh, Witmer and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 912, 289 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-parks-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack