Whitney v. Whitney

New York Court of Appeals

Whitney v. Whitney

440 N.E.2d 1324, 57 N.Y.2d 731, 454 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3657

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 9, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by116 cases

This text of 440 N.E.2d 1324 (Whitney v. Whitney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Whitney v. Whitney, 440 N.E.2d 1324, 57 N.Y.2d 731, 454 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3657 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for a review of the facts and the exercise of discretion, if appropriate. CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 4) vests a court with broad discretion in considering whether to dismiss an action on the ground that another action is pending between the same parties on the same cause of action. Thus, it was error for the Appellate Division to have reversed, on the law, the lower court’s exercise of discretion in deciding the instant motion.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer. Taking no part: Judge Gabrielli.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for a review of the facts and the exercise of discretion, if appropriate. CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 4) vests a court with broad discretion in considering whether to dismiss an action on the ground that another action is pending between the same parties on the same cause of action. Thus, it was error for the Appellate Division to have reversed, on the law, the lower court’s exercise of discretion in deciding the instant motion.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer. Taking no part: Judge Gabrielli.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

440 N.E.2d 1324, 57 N.Y.2d 731, 454 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitney-v-whitney-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack