Pena v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pena v. City of New York

222 A.D.2d 233, 635 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12714

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 233 (Pena v. City of New York) 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

Pena v. City of New York, 222 A.D.2d 233, 635 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12714 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered March 10, 1995, which granted third-party defendants’ motion to sever the third-party action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Severance of the third-party action was a proper exercise of discretion under CPLR 1010 in view of the prejudice caused by the third-party plaintiffs disclosure delays (see, Blechman v Peiser’s & Sons, 186 AD2d 50, 51-52), notwithstanding the desirability of trying these cases together. Third-party plaintiffs noncompliance with the prior order denying a severance negated any law of the case effect that that order might have had [234]*234(see, Kaplan v Einy, 209 AD2d 248, 252). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered March 10, 1995, which granted third-party defendants’ motion to sever the third-party action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Severance of the third-party action was a proper exercise of discretion under CPLR 1010 in view of the prejudice caused by the third-party plaintiffs disclosure delays (see, Blechman v Peiser’s & Sons, 186 AD2d 50, 51-52), notwithstanding the desirability of trying these cases together. Third-party plaintiffs noncompliance with the prior order denying a severance negated any law of the case effect that that order might have had [234]*234(see, Kaplan v Einy, 209 AD2d 248, 252). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 233, 635 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pena-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack