Target Graphics Inc. v. Deutsch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Target Graphics Inc. v. Deutsch

282 A.D.2d 601, 723 N.Y.S.2d 380

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

DecidedApril 16, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 601 (Target Graphics Inc. v. Deutsch) 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

Target Graphics Inc. v. Deutsch, 282 A.D.2d 601, 723 N.Y.S.2d 380 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In two related actions to recover damages for breach of contract, Ellen Deutsch, a defendant in both Actions, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), entered April 12, 2000, which denied her motion to consolidate Action No. 1 with Action No. 2.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion to consolidate. Although there are some common issues of law and fact, the actions arise out of different transactions and different claims by the respective plaintiffs (see, CPLR 602 [a]; D'Abreau v American Bankers Ins. Co., 261 AD2d 501; Stephens v Allstate Ins. Co., 185 AD2d 338). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In two related actions to recover damages for breach of contract, Ellen Deutsch, a defendant in both Actions, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), entered April 12, 2000, which denied her motion to consolidate Action No. 1 with Action No. 2.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion to consolidate. Although there are some common issues of law and fact, the actions arise out of different transactions and different claims by the respective plaintiffs (see, CPLR 602 [a]; D'Abreau v American Bankers Ins. Co., 261 AD2d 501; Stephens v Allstate Ins. Co., 185 AD2d 338). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 601, 723 N.Y.S.2d 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/target-graphics-inc-v-deutsch-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack