Reynolds Metals Co. v. Speciner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reynolds Metals Co. v. Speciner

6 A.D.2d 863, 175 N.Y.S.2d 605, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5305

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 6 A.D.2d 863 (Reynolds Metals Co. v. Speciner) 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

Reynolds Metals Co. v. Speciner, 6 A.D.2d 863, 175 N.Y.S.2d 605, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5305 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

The court should not, in the exercise of discretion, entertain an action for a declaratory judgment where the matter sought to be adjudicated is the subject of another action pending, which when tried, will dispose of all the issues involved in the declaratory judgment action (Storer v. Ripley, 283 App. Div. 973). In the ease before us, not only is such an action pending in the Federal court, but another one, based on the main complaint, is pending in this court. There is accordingly no necessity for the declaratory judgment action and the supplemental complaint seeking that form of relief should be dismissed. The order appealed from is modified on the law and in the court’s discretion [864]*864so as to dismiss the supplemental complaint and stay the original action based on the first complaint until final determination of the Federal action or until further order lifting the stay upon a proper showing of facts as a basis therefor, with costs to the appellant. Settle order. Concur — Botein,* P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and Bergan, JJ.

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

The court should not, in the exercise of discretion, entertain an action for a declaratory judgment where the matter sought to be adjudicated is the subject of another action pending, which when tried, will dispose of all the issues involved in the declaratory judgment action (Storer v. Ripley, 283 App. Div. 973). In the ease before us, not only is such an action pending in the Federal court, but another one, based on the main complaint, is pending in this court. There is accordingly no necessity for the declaratory judgment action and the supplemental complaint seeking that form of relief should be dismissed. The order appealed from is modified on the law and in the court’s discretion [864]*864so as to dismiss the supplemental complaint and stay the original action based on the first complaint until final determination of the Federal action or until further order lifting the stay upon a proper showing of facts as a basis therefor, with costs to the appellant. Settle order. Concur — Botein,* P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.2d 863, 175 N.Y.S.2d 605, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynolds-metals-co-v-speciner-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack