Shea v. Oussani

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Shea v. Oussani

133 N.Y.S. 1074

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 133 N.Y.S. 1074 (Shea v. Oussani) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shea v. Oussani, 133 N.Y.S. 1074 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

GUY, J.

The defendant appeals from so much of an order of the City Court consolidating four actions brought by plaintiff against defendant as provides that the order is granted—

“upon condition that within five days defendant pay the plaintiff’s attorney herein $10 costs of this motion; and it is further ordered that, if successful herein, the plaintiff tax costs and disbursements in all actions to date.”

The four actions were on four separate promissory notes, all of which were past due at the time of the commencement of the first action, and the answer in each case contains, with slight and immaterial modifications, the same defenses and counterclaims. The purpose of the statute was to prevent a plaintiff from harassing a defendant by prosecuting different suits for causes of action which could be joined.” Miller v. Baillard, 124 App. Div. 555, 108 N. Y. Supp. 973. The imposing of terms upon defendant was therefore improper; also the provision that, if successful, the plaintiff should be entitled to tax costs in all four actions.

The order should therefore be modified, by striking out that part of the order appealed from, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs, but with disbursements to the appellant. All concur.

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

GUY, J.

The defendant appeals from so much of an order of the City Court consolidating four actions brought by plaintiff against defendant as provides that the order is granted—

“upon condition that within five days defendant pay the plaintiff’s attorney herein $10 costs of this motion; and it is further ordered that, if successful herein, the plaintiff tax costs and disbursements in all actions to date.”

The four actions were on four separate promissory notes, all of which were past due at the time of the commencement of the first action, and the answer in each case contains, with slight and immaterial modifications, the same defenses and counterclaims. The purpose of the statute was to prevent a plaintiff from harassing a defendant by prosecuting different suits for causes of action which could be joined.” Miller v. Baillard, 124 App. Div. 555, 108 N. Y. Supp. 973. The imposing of terms upon defendant was therefore improper; also the provision that, if successful, the plaintiff should be entitled to tax costs in all four actions.

The order should therefore be modified, by striking out that part of the order appealed from, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs, but with disbursements to the appellant. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 N.Y.S. 1074, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shea-v-oussani-nyappterm-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack