Shergill v. Twr Express, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shergill v. Twr Express, Inc.

236 A.D.2d 310, 654 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1498

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 310 (Shergill v. Twr Express, Inc.) 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

Shergill v. Twr Express, Inc., 236 A.D.2d 310, 654 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1498 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about September 11, 1996, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly decided the class certification question without waiting for defendant to conduct discovery as to its contested cross motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs can be expected to find a suitable replacement should counsel eventually be disqualified. Moreover, the class can always be decertified should it become necessary at a later date (see, Friar v Vanguard Holding Corp., 78 AD2d 83, 100).

The affidavits of the representatives sufficiently establish all the requirements of CPLR 901 for class certification, and defendant failed to offer any proof in opposition or to request a fact-finding hearing in timely fashion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about September 11, 1996, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly decided the class certification question without waiting for defendant to conduct discovery as to its contested cross motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs can be expected to find a suitable replacement should counsel eventually be disqualified. Moreover, the class can always be decertified should it become necessary at a later date (see, Friar v Vanguard Holding Corp., 78 AD2d 83, 100).

The affidavits of the representatives sufficiently establish all the requirements of CPLR 901 for class certification, and defendant failed to offer any proof in opposition or to request a fact-finding hearing in timely fashion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 310, 654 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shergill-v-twr-express-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack