Universal Utilities, Inc. v. Tankell

73 A.D.2d 947, 424 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9862

This text of 73 A.D.2d 947 (Universal Utilities, Inc. v. Tankell) 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
Universal Utilities, Inc. v. Tankell, 73 A.D.2d 947, 424 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

In an action to recover the sum of $6,797.32 on an alleged partnership debt, plaintiffs and defendant Levine cross appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 11, 1979, as (1) denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to discontinue the action; and (2) denied defendant Levine’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Order modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision denying plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to discontinue their action and substituting therefor provisions granting said motion and directing a severance of the counterclaim and cross claim asserted by defendant Levine. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements payable to the plaintiffs by defendant Levine. We are of the opinion that the denial of plaintiffs’ cross motion to discontinue the action was an improvident exercise of discretion. Defendant Levine’s cross motion for summary judgment does not constitute a submission of the cause to the court or jury to determine the facts, so as to require the stipulation of all parties appearing in the action in order to grant a discontinuance (cf. Piedmont Hotel Co. v Nettleton Co., 241 App Div 562). The severance of the counterclaim and cross claim will adequately preserve any rights which defendant Levine may have. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Piedmont Hotel Co. v. A. E. Nettleton Co.
241 A.D. 562 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 A.D.2d 947, 424 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/universal-utilities-inc-v-tankell-nyappdiv-1980.