Walls v. Prestige Management, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walls v. Prestige Management, Inc.

59 A.D.3d 311, 872 N.Y.S.2d 918

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.3d 311 (Walls v. Prestige Management, Inc.) 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

Walls v. Prestige Management, Inc., 59 A.D.3d 311, 872 N.Y.S.2d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), entered January 2, 2008, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate the instant action with an action previously commenced in Civil Court, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court appropriately exercised its discretion in consolidating this action with an action that was previously commenced by plaintiff Vanessa Walls pro se in Civil Court (see CPLR 602). The two cases present an identity of issues and common questions of law and fact, and defendants have failed to demonstrate that consolidation will prejudice a substantial right (Amcan Holdings, Inc, v Torys LLP, 32 AD3d 337, 339 [2006]). Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), entered January 2, 2008, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate the instant action with an action previously commenced in Civil Court, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court appropriately exercised its discretion in consolidating this action with an action that was previously commenced by plaintiff Vanessa Walls pro se in Civil Court (see CPLR 602). The two cases present an identity of issues and common questions of law and fact, and defendants have failed to demonstrate that consolidation will prejudice a substantial right (Amcan Holdings, Inc, v Torys LLP, 32 AD3d 337, 339 [2006]). Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 311, 872 N.Y.S.2d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walls-v-prestige-management-inc-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack