Perina v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perina v. State

37 A.D.2d 882, 325 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3168

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1971

DocketClaim No. 53226; Claim No. 53227; Claim No. 53228

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.2d 882 (Perina v. State) 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

Perina v. State, 37 A.D.2d 882, 325 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3168 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, entered February 9, 1971, which denied defendant’s motion for an order directing that the above actions be tried together, without consolidation, and that the venue of Action No. 1 be changed to Albany County. The claim in Action No. 1 is founded upon the alleged tort of interfering in the contract between claimant and one John Wilson, and of causing the breach of said contract by said John Wilson. The claims in Actions Nos. 2 and 3 seek to recover damages by reason of alleged false arrests and malicious prosecution. CPLR 602 (subd. [a]) provides that the court may order a joint trial of actions involving a common question of law and fact. While the moving affidavit sufficiently establishes a common question of law and fact between Actions Nos. 2 and 3, nowhere does it allude to any common questions of law and fact between Actions Nos. 2 and 3 and Action No. 1. The order should, therefore, have been granted to the extent of directing a joint trial of Actions Nos. 2 and 3 and otherwise denied. (Quittman v. Nemarow, 31 A D 2d 543.) Order modified, on the law and the facts, so as to direct a joint trial of Actions Nos. 2 and 3, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Reynolds, J. P., Staley, Jr., Cooke, Sweeney and Simons, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, entered February 9, 1971, which denied defendant’s motion for an order directing that the above actions be tried together, without consolidation, and that the venue of Action No. 1 be changed to Albany County. The claim in Action No. 1 is founded upon the alleged tort of interfering in the contract between claimant and one John Wilson, and of causing the breach of said contract by said John Wilson. The claims in Actions Nos. 2 and 3 seek to recover damages by reason of alleged false arrests and malicious prosecution. CPLR 602 (subd. [a]) provides that the court may order a joint trial of actions involving a common question of law and fact. While the moving affidavit sufficiently establishes a common question of law and fact between Actions Nos. 2 and 3, nowhere does it allude to any common questions of law and fact between Actions Nos. 2 and 3 and Action No. 1. The order should, therefore, have been granted to the extent of directing a joint trial of Actions Nos. 2 and 3 and otherwise denied. (Quittman v. Nemarow, 31 A D 2d 543.) Order modified, on the law and the facts, so as to direct a joint trial of Actions Nos. 2 and 3, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Reynolds, J. P., Staley, Jr., Cooke, Sweeney and Simons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 882, 325 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perina-v-state-nyappdiv-1971.