From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Citibank N.A. v. Nagrotsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 19, 1997
239 A.D.2d 456 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 19, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

As there was no showing of prejudice to the appellant, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion for a voluntary discontinuance of the action (see, CPLR 3217[b]; Tucker v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 378, 383; Great W. Bank v. Terio, 200 A.D.2d 608, 609).

Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstem, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Citibank N.A. v. Nagrotsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 19, 1997
239 A.D.2d 456 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Citibank N.A. v. Nagrotsky

Case Details

Full title:CITIBANK N.A., Respondent, v. IRENE NAGROTSKY, Appellant, et al.…

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

Date published: May 19, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 456 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
658 N.Y.S.2d 966

Citing Cases

Yesilevich v. Tenenbaum

The Court, in its sound discretion, has the authority to grant or deny an application to discontinue an…

U.S. Bank v. Winston

DISCONTINUANCE AGAINST ESTATE GRANTED As a plaintiff cannot ordinarily be compelled to litigate, its motion…