Quittman v. Nemarow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quittman v. Nemarow

31 A.D.2d 543, 295 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2942

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 543 (Quittman v. Nemarow) 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

Quittman v. Nemarow, 31 A.D.2d 543, 295 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2942 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered April 1, 1968, which denied appellants’ motion to consolidate or to direct a joint trial of the actions. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by (1) striking from the decretal paragraph the words “In all respects” and (2) inserting therein, after the words “said motion shall be and the same is hereby ”, the following: “ granted to the extent of directing a joint trial of the action brought by plaintiff Quittman with the cause for assault in the action brought by plaintiffs Nemarow and otherwise ” [denied]. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellants. The alleged assaults took place as part of a single occurrence and necessarily involve common questions. Since we do not herewith order the cause for slander to be tried with the assault causes, it does not appear that Quittman can be prejudiced by the joint trial herewith ordered (CPLR 602, subd. [a]; cf. Pace v. New York City Tr. Auth., 19 A D 2d 630). Beldock, P. J., Rabin, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered April 1, 1968, which denied appellants’ motion to consolidate or to direct a joint trial of the actions. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by (1) striking from the decretal paragraph the words “In all respects” and (2) inserting therein, after the words “said motion shall be and the same is hereby ”, the following: “ granted to the extent of directing a joint trial of the action brought by plaintiff Quittman with the cause for assault in the action brought by plaintiffs Nemarow and otherwise ” [denied]. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellants. The alleged assaults took place as part of a single occurrence and necessarily involve common questions. Since we do not herewith order the cause for slander to be tried with the assault causes, it does not appear that Quittman can be prejudiced by the joint trial herewith ordered (CPLR 602, subd. [a]; cf. Pace v. New York City Tr. Auth., 19 A D 2d 630). Beldock, P. J., Rabin, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 543, 295 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quittman-v-nemarow-nyappdiv-1968.