T. R. America Chemicals, Inc. v. Seaboard Surety Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

T. R. America Chemicals, Inc. v. Seaboard Surety Co.

97 A.D.2d 354, 467 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19900

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 97 A.D.2d 354 (T. R. America Chemicals, Inc. v. Seaboard Surety 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

T. R. America Chemicals, Inc. v. Seaboard Surety Co., 97 A.D.2d 354, 467 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered April 7, 1983 in Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Ostrau, J.), which denied plaintiff’s motion to sever the libel counterclaim of third-party defendant Fullan and denied permission to amend plaintiff’s complaint, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and that part of plaintiff’s motion requesting leave to amend its complaint is granted, without costs, and said order is otherwise affirmed. Although the reasons stated by Special Term for denying plaintiff’s motion in its entirety are sound and a proper basis for its action, we believe that, as a practical matter, judicial economy is best served by one trial of all the claims. Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to modify the order appealed from to the extent indicated. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Alexander, JJ.

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

Order entered April 7, 1983 in Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Ostrau, J.), which denied plaintiff’s motion to sever the libel counterclaim of third-party defendant Fullan and denied permission to amend plaintiff’s complaint, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and that part of plaintiff’s motion requesting leave to amend its complaint is granted, without costs, and said order is otherwise affirmed. Although the reasons stated by Special Term for denying plaintiff’s motion in its entirety are sound and a proper basis for its action, we believe that, as a practical matter, judicial economy is best served by one trial of all the claims. Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to modify the order appealed from to the extent indicated. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Alexander, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 A.D.2d 354, 467 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/t-r-america-chemicals-inc-v-seaboard-surety-co-nyappdiv-1983.