Turner v. Ritter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Turner v. Ritter

293 A.D.2d 404, 740 N.Y.S.2d 622, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4071

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

DecidedApril 25, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 404 (Turner v. Ritter) 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

Turner v. Ritter, 293 A.D.2d 404, 740 N.Y.S.2d 622, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4071 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered January 18, 2001, which, upon plaintiffs motion for leave to discontinue the action without prejudice, discontinued the action with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in discontinuing the action with prejudice where plaintiff moved for a discontinuance without prejudice during the pendency of a traverse hearing after the court had ordered plaintiff to provide a definite method of establishing the amount of money defendant owed. This was an apparent attempt on plaintiffs part to evade the court’s direction and circumvent its authority (see, NBN Broadcasting v Sheridan Broadcasting Networks, 240 AD2d 319). We reject plaintiffs claim that it sought a discontinuance because of a problem establishing proper service. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered January 18, 2001, which, upon plaintiffs motion for leave to discontinue the action without prejudice, discontinued the action with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in discontinuing the action with prejudice where plaintiff moved for a discontinuance without prejudice during the pendency of a traverse hearing after the court had ordered plaintiff to provide a definite method of establishing the amount of money defendant owed. This was an apparent attempt on plaintiffs part to evade the court’s direction and circumvent its authority (see, NBN Broadcasting v Sheridan Broadcasting Networks, 240 AD2d 319). We reject plaintiffs claim that it sought a discontinuance because of a problem establishing proper service. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 404, 740 N.Y.S.2d 622, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-ritter-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack