Witherspoon v. Halpern

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Witherspoon v. Halpern

17 A.D.3d 355, 791 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3578

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

DecidedApril 4, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.3d 355 (Witherspoon v. Halpern) 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

Witherspoon v. Halpern, 17 A.D.3d 355, 791 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant Seymour Halpern appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated September 23, 2003, which denied his motion to sever the action into three separate actions and to change venue as to Theodore Wither-spoon with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellant’s motion which was to sever the action into three separate actions with leave to renew after the completion of discovery (see CPLR 603; Ellis v Whippo, 262 AD2d 1055, 1056 [1999]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Adams, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant Seymour Halpern appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated September 23, 2003, which denied his motion to sever the action into three separate actions and to change venue as to Theodore Wither-spoon with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellant’s motion which was to sever the action into three separate actions with leave to renew after the completion of discovery (see CPLR 603; Ellis v Whippo, 262 AD2d 1055, 1056 [1999]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Adams, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 355, 791 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/witherspoon-v-halpern-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack