Surowitz & Ruskin, P. C. v. Sable

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Surowitz & Ruskin, P. C. v. Sable

52 A.D.2d 832, 384 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12649

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

DecidedMay 27, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 832 (Surowitz & Ruskin, P. C. v. Sable) 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

Surowitz & Ruskin, P. C. v. Sable, 52 A.D.2d 832, 384 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 10, 1976, inter alia, granting defendants’ motion to transfer the instant action to Surrogate’s Court, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and said motion denied. While the first three causes of action appear to relate to services rendered the estate administered by defendant Lee Sable, the fourth and fifth causes do not. Moreover, defendant Philip Sable apparently had no relationship to said estate. Accordingly, since only some of the causes can be transferred, we believe judicial time and resources would be best served by not fragmentizing this litigation. Concur—Murphy, J. P., Birns, Capozzoli, Nunez and Lynch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 10, 1976, inter alia, granting defendants’ motion to transfer the instant action to Surrogate’s Court, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and said motion denied. While the first three causes of action appear to relate to services rendered the estate administered by defendant Lee Sable, the fourth and fifth causes do not. Moreover, defendant Philip Sable apparently had no relationship to said estate. Accordingly, since only some of the causes can be transferred, we believe judicial time and resources would be best served by not fragmentizing this litigation. Concur—Murphy, J. P., Birns, Capozzoli, Nunez and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 832, 384 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/surowitz-ruskin-p-c-v-sable-nyappdiv-1976.