Sidney Bitterman, Inc. v. Herbert H. Post & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sidney Bitterman, Inc. v. Herbert H. Post & Co.

169 A.D.2d 686, 565 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 852

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 169 A.D.2d 686 (Sidney Bitterman, Inc. v. Herbert H. Post & 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

Sidney Bitterman, Inc. v. Herbert H. Post & Co., 169 A.D.2d 686, 565 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered December 13, 1989, which, inter alia, granted the motion by plaintiff Sidney Bitterman, Inc. for an order consolidating the above-titled action with another action, to the extent of directing that there be a joint discovery and a joint trial of the two actions, and that the caption of the two actions be consolidated, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS court did not abuse its discretion in directing a joint trial of these two actions. The first action was commenced by an accounting firm to recover a fee; counterclaims alleging accounting malpractice for failing to uncover a massive embezzlement scheme were interposed. The second action, brought by one of the defendants in the first action, also arises out of the accounting firm’s role in the same embezzlement scheme. There are clearly substantial issues of law and fact that are common to both actions (Bradford v Coleman Catholic High School, 110 AD2d 965). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Kassal and Smith, 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 December 13, 1989, which, inter alia, granted the motion by plaintiff Sidney Bitterman, Inc. for an order consolidating the above-titled action with another action, to the extent of directing that there be a joint discovery and a joint trial of the two actions, and that the caption of the two actions be consolidated, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS court did not abuse its discretion in directing a joint trial of these two actions. The first action was commenced by an accounting firm to recover a fee; counterclaims alleging accounting malpractice for failing to uncover a massive embezzlement scheme were interposed. The second action, brought by one of the defendants in the first action, also arises out of the accounting firm’s role in the same embezzlement scheme. There are clearly substantial issues of law and fact that are common to both actions (Bradford v Coleman Catholic High School, 110 AD2d 965). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 686, 565 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sidney-bitterman-inc-v-herbert-h-post-co-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack