From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barnes v. Cathers Dembrosky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 2, 2004
5 A.D.3d 122 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2984N.

Decided March 2, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered September 24, 2003, which denied plaintiffs' motion to consolidate this action with another action pending in New York County, entitled Cathers v. Barnes (Index No. 600214/02), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Jonathan A. Willens, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Allan H. Carlin, for Defendants-Respondents.

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.


The two actions are at completely different stages of discovery. Consolidation would result in undue delay in the resolution of the Cathers action ( see Abrams v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 1 A.D.3d 118, 766 N.Y.S.2d 429).

Motion seeking leave to strike portions of reply brief granted.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Barnes v. Cathers Dembrosky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 2, 2004
5 A.D.3d 122 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Barnes v. Cathers Dembrosky

Case Details

Full title:BRUCE BARNES, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CATHERS AND DEMBROSKY, ET…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 2, 2004

Citations

5 A.D.3d 122 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
771 N.Y.S.2d 895

Citing Cases

Yottoy Prods., Inc. v. Majestic Realty Assocs. LLC

However, "[e]ven where there are common questions of law or fact, [a motion for removal and joinder] is.…

Torres v. 120 Broadway Holdings

Under these circumstances, joint discovery and trial will serve the interest of judicial economy and "avoid…