Tamborin v. Bordi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tamborin v. Bordi

13 A.D.2d 849, 214 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11042

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

DecidedMay 9, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.2d 849 (Tamborin v. Bordi) 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

Tamborin v. Bordi, 13 A.D.2d 849, 214 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11042 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendants, who are husband and wife, appeal from an order of Special Term which, on motion of plaintiff, consolidated the actions. Initially, plaintiff sued defendant husband for an alleged assault. Some 16 months later he commenced a second action against defendant wife on the claim that at the time of its commission, the husband was acting as her agent within the scope of his authority. Both actions arose out of the same event; each will require the same basic proof to establish the assault and injury; the Trial Term status of each is identical. The presence of the issue of vicarious liability in the action against the defendant wife will not prejudice any substantial right of defendants. Consolidation of the actions is appropriate and the discretion of Special Term was properly exercised. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 96.) Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.

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

Defendants, who are husband and wife, appeal from an order of Special Term which, on motion of plaintiff, consolidated the actions. Initially, plaintiff sued defendant husband for an alleged assault. Some 16 months later he commenced a second action against defendant wife on the claim that at the time of its commission, the husband was acting as her agent within the scope of his authority. Both actions arose out of the same event; each will require the same basic proof to establish the assault and injury; the Trial Term status of each is identical. The presence of the issue of vicarious liability in the action against the defendant wife will not prejudice any substantial right of defendants. Consolidation of the actions is appropriate and the discretion of Special Term was properly exercised. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 96.) Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.2d 849, 214 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tamborin-v-bordi-nyappdiv-1961.