Redanz v. Kuntz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Redanz v. Kuntz

99 A.D.2d 654, 472 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16905

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.2d 654 (Redanz v. Kuntz) 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

Redanz v. Kuntz, 99 A.D.2d 654, 472 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Special Term erred in ordering consolidation of an action for personal injury and property damage with an action for a declaratory judgment to determine whether an insurance company has a duty to defend the defendant in the first action. The prejudice inherent in a situation of this sort should be avoided (see Kelly v Yannotti, 4 NY2d 603, 607-608; Krieger v Insurance Co'., 66 AD2d 1025, 1026; Pierce v International Harvester Co., 65 AD2d 254, 258; McDavid v Gunnigle, 50 AD2d 737, 738; D'Apice v Tishman 919 Corp., 43 ÁD2d 925). Defendant’s request for a stay of the personal injury action until the declaratory judgment action is decided should be addressed to the Calendar Judge. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Erwin, J. — consolidate actions.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Green, O’Donnell and Moule, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Special Term erred in ordering consolidation of an action for personal injury and property damage with an action for a declaratory judgment to determine whether an insurance company has a duty to defend the defendant in the first action. The prejudice inherent in a situation of this sort should be avoided (see Kelly v Yannotti, 4 NY2d 603, 607-608; Krieger v Insurance Co'., 66 AD2d 1025, 1026; Pierce v International Harvester Co., 65 AD2d 254, 258; McDavid v Gunnigle, 50 AD2d 737, 738; D'Apice v Tishman 919 Corp., 43 ÁD2d 925). Defendant’s request for a stay of the personal injury action until the declaratory judgment action is decided should be addressed to the Calendar Judge. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Erwin, J. — consolidate actions.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Green, O’Donnell and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 654, 472 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/redanz-v-kuntz-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack