Whippoorwill Hills Homeowners Ass'n v. Toll at Whippoorwill, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Whippoorwill Hills Homeowners Ass'n v. Toll at Whippoorwill, L.P.

91 A.D.3d 864, 937 N.Y.2d 595

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 864 (Whippoorwill Hills Homeowners Ass'n v. Toll at Whippoorwill, L.P.) 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

Whippoorwill Hills Homeowners Ass'n v. Toll at Whippoorwill, L.P., 91 A.D.3d 864, 937 N.Y.2d 595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[865]*865Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in directing the severance of the third-party actions at issue from the main action. Severance will avoid undue delay in the main action, which was commenced more than four years ago and has been certified ready for trial, and will avoid prejudice to the third-party defendants, who have not had an adequate opportunity to complete discovery (see CPLR 1010; Meczkowski v E.W. Howell Co., Inc., 63 AD3d 803, 804 [2009]; Abreo v Baez, 29 AD3d 833, 834 [2006]; Wassel v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 307 AD2d 752 [2003]; Singh v City of New York, 294 AD2d 422, 423 [2002]). Dillon, J.P, Dickerson, Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

[865]*865Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in directing the severance of the third-party actions at issue from the main action. Severance will avoid undue delay in the main action, which was commenced more than four years ago and has been certified ready for trial, and will avoid prejudice to the third-party defendants, who have not had an adequate opportunity to complete discovery (see CPLR 1010; Meczkowski v E.W. Howell Co., Inc., 63 AD3d 803, 804 [2009]; Abreo v Baez, 29 AD3d 833, 834 [2006]; Wassel v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 307 AD2d 752 [2003]; Singh v City of New York, 294 AD2d 422, 423 [2002]). Dillon, J.P, Dickerson, Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 864, 937 N.Y.2d 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whippoorwill-hills-homeowners-assn-v-toll-at-whippoorwill-lp-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack