White v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

White v. Smith

112 A.D.2d 418, 491 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56165

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

DecidedJuly 29, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 A.D.2d 418 (White v. Smith) 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

White v. Smith, 112 A.D.2d 418, 491 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56165 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a written contract of sale, and in a summary holdover proceeding pursuant to RPAPL article 7, the appeal is from an order [419]*419of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Widlitz, J.), entered October 16, 1984, which granted respondents’ motion for reargument and, upon reargument, (1) vacated a prior order of the same court dated August 23, 1984, which, upon appellants’ motion, had directed that the action and proceeding be consolidated; and (2) denied appellants’ motion for consolidation pursuant to CPLR 602.

Order reversed, with costs, order dated August 23, 1984 reinstated and motion for reargument denied.

We find that these two matters involve common questions of law and fact. In the interest of judicial economy, the matters, which appear to be ready for trial, should proceed. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a written contract of sale, and in a summary holdover proceeding pursuant to RPAPL article 7, the appeal is from an order [419]*419of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Widlitz, J.), entered October 16, 1984, which granted respondents’ motion for reargument and, upon reargument, (1) vacated a prior order of the same court dated August 23, 1984, which, upon appellants’ motion, had directed that the action and proceeding be consolidated; and (2) denied appellants’ motion for consolidation pursuant to CPLR 602.

Order reversed, with costs, order dated August 23, 1984 reinstated and motion for reargument denied.

We find that these two matters involve common questions of law and fact. In the interest of judicial economy, the matters, which appear to be ready for trial, should proceed. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 418, 491 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-smith-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack