Reid v. Haher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reid v. Haher

88 A.D.2d 873, 451 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17194

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

DecidedJune 24, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 873 (Reid v. Haher) 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

Reid v. Haher, 88 A.D.2d 873, 451 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (M. Taylor, J.) entered January 7,1981, denying defendant’s motion to sever actions brought by separate plaintiffs and based upon separate transactions, reversed, on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion for severance granted. A single complaint asserts separate malpractice actions arising out of unrelated transactions and involving different plaintiffs. [874]*874The two wholly separate transactions are primarily linked by the fact that the same doctor is charged with malpractice and that the different plaintiffs are represented by the same lawyer. Under the circumstances we think it unnecessary to await the determination of a Trial Judge to decide that a severance is required “[i]n furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice”. (CPLR 603.) Concur — Sandler, J. P., Carro, Bloom, Fein and Milonas, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (M. Taylor, J.) entered January 7,1981, denying defendant’s motion to sever actions brought by separate plaintiffs and based upon separate transactions, reversed, on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion for severance granted. A single complaint asserts separate malpractice actions arising out of unrelated transactions and involving different plaintiffs. [874]*874The two wholly separate transactions are primarily linked by the fact that the same doctor is charged with malpractice and that the different plaintiffs are represented by the same lawyer. Under the circumstances we think it unnecessary to await the determination of a Trial Judge to decide that a severance is required “[i]n furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice”. (CPLR 603.) Concur — Sandler, J. P., Carro, Bloom, Fein and Milonas, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 873, 451 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reid-v-haher-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack