Santana v. Fischer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santana v. Fischer

49 A.D.2d 734, 372 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10685

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.2d 734 (Santana v. Fischer) 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

Santana v. Fischer, 49 A.D.2d 734, 372 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on November 6, 1974 and June 13, 1975, respectively, dismissing plaintiffs’ action, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. This is the third action instituted by the plaintiff, each action seeking damages for the same injuries. The first action was aborted after a preclusion order was obtained. In the second action nothing other than a summons was served. A motion to dismiss this third action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [c], par 4), on the grounds of another action pending, was properly granted by Special Term. Plaintiff cannot now institute this suit and thereby circumvent the effect of the prior outstanding order of preclusion (cf. Palmer v Fox, 28 AD2d 968). Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Murphy, Lupiano and Lane, JJ.

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

Order and judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on November 6, 1974 and June 13, 1975, respectively, dismissing plaintiffs’ action, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. This is the third action instituted by the plaintiff, each action seeking damages for the same injuries. The first action was aborted after a preclusion order was obtained. In the second action nothing other than a summons was served. A motion to dismiss this third action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [c], par 4), on the grounds of another action pending, was properly granted by Special Term. Plaintiff cannot now institute this suit and thereby circumvent the effect of the prior outstanding order of preclusion (cf. Palmer v Fox, 28 AD2d 968). Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Murphy, Lupiano and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 734, 372 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santana-v-fischer-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack