Peterson v. Youngelman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peterson v. Youngelman

23 A.D.3d 446, 803 N.Y.S.2d 919

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.3d 446 (Peterson v. Youngelman) 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

Peterson v. Youngelman, 23 A.D.3d 446, 803 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated September 22, 2004, which denied his motion, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 325 (b) to remove to the Supreme Court three separate actions pending against him in the District Court, Suffolk County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the three actions commenced by the plaintiff in the District Court, Suffolk County, in addition to the defendant’s proposed counterclaims, are within the jurisdiction of that court, irrespective of whether they qualify as “small claims” within the meaning of Uniform District Court Act (hereinafter UDCA) article 18 (see UDCA 202, 208 [b]; 1805 [b]; 2501). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion.

In light of our determination, we do not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated September 22, 2004, which denied his motion, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 325 (b) to remove to the Supreme Court three separate actions pending against him in the District Court, Suffolk County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the three actions commenced by the plaintiff in the District Court, Suffolk County, in addition to the defendant’s proposed counterclaims, are within the jurisdiction of that court, irrespective of whether they qualify as “small claims” within the meaning of Uniform District Court Act (hereinafter UDCA) article 18 (see UDCA 202, 208 [b]; 1805 [b]; 2501). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion.

In light of our determination, we do not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 446, 803 N.Y.S.2d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-youngelman-nyappdiv-2005.