From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Breytman v. Olinville Realty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 23, 2010
70 A.D.3d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2214.

February 23, 2010.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered January 20, 2009, which denied plaintiff's motion to restore the case to active status, and granted defendants-respondents' cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b) to voluntarily withdraw their counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Alexander Breytman, appellant pro se.

Jaffe Asher LLP, New York (Ira N. Glauber of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.


The determination of the motion court was appropriate in light of this Court's dismissal of plaintiff's action as against respondents ( 46 AD3d 484, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 11 NY3d 768). Plaintiff has not shown that the dismissal of the counterclaims has caused him prejudice, nor are there any other special circumstances warranting that respondents be compelled to pursue their counterclaims ( see Burnham Serv. Corp. v National Council on Compensation Ins., 288 AD2d 31, 32).


Summaries of

Breytman v. Olinville Realty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 23, 2010
70 A.D.3d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Breytman v. Olinville Realty

Case Details

Full title:ALEXANDER BREYTMAN, Appellant, v. OLINVILLE REALTY, LLC, et al.…

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

Date published: Feb 23, 2010

Citations

70 A.D.3d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 1546
893 N.Y.S.2d 872

Citing Cases

Treuhold Capital Group v. Wissak

Absent such potential prejudice to defendants, it would be an abuse of discretion to deny the discontinuance…