Soto v. Rosen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Soto v. Rosen

215 A.D.2d 226, 626 N.Y.S.2d 443

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

DecidedMay 11, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.D.2d 226 (Soto v. Rosen) 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

Soto v. Rosen, 215 A.D.2d 226, 626 N.Y.S.2d 443 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered September 14, 1994, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the third-party defendants’ motion to sever the third-party action, and order, same court and Justice, entered December 8, 1994, which denied plaintiffs motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate prejudice or that the limited discovery sought by the third-party defendants will unduly delay the damage trial or the balance of the action (CPLR 1010). Accordingly, the IAS Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the application to sever the third-party indemnity action (see, Shanley v Callanan Indus., 54 NY2d 52, 57). Concur—Ross, J. P., Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered September 14, 1994, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the third-party defendants’ motion to sever the third-party action, and order, same court and Justice, entered December 8, 1994, which denied plaintiffs motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate prejudice or that the limited discovery sought by the third-party defendants will unduly delay the damage trial or the balance of the action (CPLR 1010). Accordingly, the IAS Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the application to sever the third-party indemnity action (see, Shanley v Callanan Indus., 54 NY2d 52, 57). Concur—Ross, J. P., Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 226, 626 N.Y.S.2d 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soto-v-rosen-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack