Scheidegger v. Alpine Sporting Goods Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scheidegger v. Alpine Sporting Goods Co.

27 A.D.2d 938, 280 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4529

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

DecidedApril 3, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 938 (Scheidegger v. Alpine Sporting Goods Co.) 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

Scheidegger v. Alpine Sporting Goods Co., 27 A.D.2d 938, 280 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 30,1966 and January 12, 1967, reversed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements payable to plaintiff by defendant and third-party plaintiff-appellant and (1) the latter’s motion to consolidate Actions Nos. 1 and 2 granted; and consolidation directed upon the following conditions: (a) the consolidated action shall retain the index and calendar numbers assigned to Action No. 1; (b) the action by plaintiff against the defendant and third-party plaintiff-appellant shall be tried first by the court without a jury; thereafter a jury shall try the issues remaining to be tried in Action No. 2 and the issues remaining to be tried, if any, in the third-party and fourth-party actions in Action No. 1; (e) plaintiff shall have the right to open and close before the jury; and (d) the consolidated action shall be placed on the September 1967 Calendar for trial and all pretrial proceedings shall be completed before September 1, 1967; and (2) cross motion of third-party defendant-respondent granted to the extent of permitting it to file a jury demand, nunc pro tu/nc, in Action No. 1. In our opinion, the denial of consolidation and the failure to permit the third-party defendant-respondent to file a jury demand nunc pro tunc constituted an improvident exercise of discretion. TJghetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

Orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 30,1966 and January 12, 1967, reversed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements payable to plaintiff by defendant and third-party plaintiff-appellant and (1) the latter’s motion to consolidate Actions Nos. 1 and 2 granted; and consolidation directed upon the following conditions: (a) the consolidated action shall retain the index and calendar numbers assigned to Action No. 1; (b) the action by plaintiff against the defendant and third-party plaintiff-appellant shall be tried first by the court without a jury; thereafter a jury shall try the issues remaining to be tried in Action No. 2 and the issues remaining to be tried, if any, in the third-party and fourth-party actions in Action No. 1; (e) plaintiff shall have the right to open and close before the jury; and (d) the consolidated action shall be placed on the September 1967 Calendar for trial and all pretrial proceedings shall be completed before September 1, 1967; and (2) cross motion of third-party defendant-respondent granted to the extent of permitting it to file a jury demand, nunc pro tu/nc, in Action No. 1. In our opinion, the denial of consolidation and the failure to permit the third-party defendant-respondent to file a jury demand nunc pro tunc constituted an improvident exercise of discretion. TJghetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 938, 280 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scheidegger-v-alpine-sporting-goods-co-nyappdiv-1967.