Singer v. Singer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Singer v. Singer

33 A.D.2d 1054, 308 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5447

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 33 A.D.2d 1054 (Singer v. Singer) 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

Singer v. Singer, 33 A.D.2d 1054, 308 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5447 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action by a wife to annul a separation agreement entered into with her husband in November, 1964 (Action No. 1), plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 2, 1969, which upon the court’s own motion, directed consolidation of that action with Action No. 2, which is a suit by the same plaintiff, against the same defendant and a corporation whose capital stock is owned solely by the defendant-husband, to recover for services allegedly rendered to and monies invested in the corporation. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without [1055]*1055costs, and actions severed. In our opinion, the trial court acted improperly when, upon its own motion, it ordered consolidation of the actions (see CPLR 602 and Practice Commentary thereon in McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N. Y., Book 7B, CPLR 501-2200, p. 116). Admittedly a court has broad powers to order consolidation but they should not be exercised in a situation as at bar where neither side requests such action, where approximately five months have elapsed since both sides offered their proof in' Action No. 1 and where Action No. 2 has not yet been reached for trial. Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action by a wife to annul a separation agreement entered into with her husband in November, 1964 (Action No. 1), plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 2, 1969, which upon the court’s own motion, directed consolidation of that action with Action No. 2, which is a suit by the same plaintiff, against the same defendant and a corporation whose capital stock is owned solely by the defendant-husband, to recover for services allegedly rendered to and monies invested in the corporation. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without [1055]*1055costs, and actions severed. In our opinion, the trial court acted improperly when, upon its own motion, it ordered consolidation of the actions (see CPLR 602 and Practice Commentary thereon in McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N. Y., Book 7B, CPLR 501-2200, p. 116). Admittedly a court has broad powers to order consolidation but they should not be exercised in a situation as at bar where neither side requests such action, where approximately five months have elapsed since both sides offered their proof in' Action No. 1 and where Action No. 2 has not yet been reached for trial. Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 1054, 308 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singer-v-singer-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack