Muldoon v. Abbott Laboratories

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Muldoon v. Abbott Laboratories

277 A.D.2d 158, 716 N.Y.S.2d 305, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12478

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

DecidedNovember 28, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 158 (Muldoon v. Abbott Laboratories) 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

Muldoon v. Abbott Laboratories, 277 A.D.2d 158, 716 N.Y.S.2d 305, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12478 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered June 22, 2000, which granted plaintiffs application that her DES products liability action be tried jointly with several other DES products liability actions, so long as such actions were ready for trial as of Augúst 1, 2000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In view of the circumstance that plaintiffs action and the other DES actions with which it is to be jointly tried pursuant to the appealed order share common questions of law and fact, and that defendants failed to demonstrate that a joint trial of the subject DES actions would be prejudicial to them, joinder of the actions for trial constituted a proper exercise of Trial Term’s discretion (see, CPLR 602 [a]; Heck v Waldbaum’s Supermarkets, 134 AD2d 568; see also, Matter of New York County DES Litig. [Chernosky v Abbott Labs.], 195 AD2d 415, 416). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered June 22, 2000, which granted plaintiffs application that her DES products liability action be tried jointly with several other DES products liability actions, so long as such actions were ready for trial as of Augúst 1, 2000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In view of the circumstance that plaintiffs action and the other DES actions with which it is to be jointly tried pursuant to the appealed order share common questions of law and fact, and that defendants failed to demonstrate that a joint trial of the subject DES actions would be prejudicial to them, joinder of the actions for trial constituted a proper exercise of Trial Term’s discretion (see, CPLR 602 [a]; Heck v Waldbaum’s Supermarkets, 134 AD2d 568; see also, Matter of New York County DES Litig. [Chernosky v Abbott Labs.], 195 AD2d 415, 416). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 158, 716 N.Y.S.2d 305, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muldoon-v-abbott-laboratories-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack