From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hirschfeld v. Stahl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Aug 14, 1997
242 A.D.2d 214 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

August 14, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.).


The motion court should have granted the discontinuance with prejudice, since plaintiff would otherwise be able to circumvent a prior order of the same court, different Justice, rendered in connection with the second action prior to consolidation, and thereby deprive certain defendants of a substantial right by seeking disclosure ostensibly for purposes of what was the first action prior to consolidation. Because certain causes of action in the consolidated complaint are derived from the second action, which is being discontinued, we reinstate plaintiff's original verified complaint, dated November 17, 1992, in the first action before consolidation.

The order denying reargument is nonappealable (see, Berman v Szpilzinger, 180 A.D.2d 612).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Wallach and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Hirschfeld v. Stahl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Aug 14, 1997
242 A.D.2d 214 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Hirschfeld v. Stahl

Case Details

Full title:ABRAHAM HIRSCHFELD, Respondent, v. STANLEY STAHL et al., Appellants, et…

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

Date published: Aug 14, 1997

Citations

242 A.D.2d 214 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
661 N.Y.S.2d 959

Citing Cases

Pearson v. N.Y

"There is no outstanding court order in favor of the [Morgan defendants] which would be frustrated by the…

Paladino v. Cojocaru

] [request to permit claim discontinuance denied because it was evident that plaintiff s request, made while…