Wilson v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wilson v. City of New York

1 A.D.3d 157, 766 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11844

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1 A.D.3d 157 (Wilson v. City of New York) 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

Wilson v. City of New York, 1 A.D.3d 157, 766 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered March 28, 2003, which, inter alia, denied the motion of second third-party defendant Gandhi Engineering, EC. to sever the second third-party action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying Gandhi’s motion for a severance since the actions involve common factual and legal issues and judicial economy would be served by trying them together, the court afforded Gandhi an adequate opportunity to complete discovery, and Gandhi has not otherwise demonstrated prejudice due to its having been impleaded at the “eleventh-hour” (see e.g. Rothstein v Mil[158]*158leridge Inn, 251 AD2d 154 [1998]; Pescatore v American Export Lines, 131 AD2d 739 [1987]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered March 28, 2003, which, inter alia, denied the motion of second third-party defendant Gandhi Engineering, EC. to sever the second third-party action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying Gandhi’s motion for a severance since the actions involve common factual and legal issues and judicial economy would be served by trying them together, the court afforded Gandhi an adequate opportunity to complete discovery, and Gandhi has not otherwise demonstrated prejudice due to its having been impleaded at the “eleventh-hour” (see e.g. Rothstein v Mil[158]*158leridge Inn, 251 AD2d 154 [1998]; Pescatore v American Export Lines, 131 AD2d 739 [1987]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.3d 157, 766 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack