Mathias v. Daily News

21 Citing cases

  1. America's Residential Properties, LLC v. Lema

    118 A.D.3d 735 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    ejudice on a ground that was not litigated or raised by the parties ( see Taylor v. Curry, 107 A.D.3d 879, 966 N.Y.S.2d 872;Greene v. Davidson, 210 A.D.2d 108, 109, 620 N.Y.S.2d 48;Matter of Dental Socy. of State of N.Y. v. Carey, 92 A.D.2d 263, 264, 461 N.Y.S.2d 77,affd. 61 N.Y.2d 330, 474 N.Y.S.2d 262, 462 N.E.2d 362;see also Matter of Tilcon N.Y., Inc. v. Town of Poughkeepsie, 87 A.D.3d 1148, 1152, 930 N.Y.S.2d 34;cf. Tirado v. Miller, 75 A.D.3d 153, 154, 901 N.Y.S.2d 358). Furthermore, there was no basis for dismissing the action with prejudice. The general rule is that a plaintiff should be permitted to discontinue an action without prejudice unless the defendant would be prejudiced thereby ( see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fisch, 103 A.D.3d 622, 622, 959 N.Y.S.2d 260;Brenhouse v. Anthony Indus., 156 A.D.2d 411, 412, 548 N.Y.S.2d 533;Valladares v. Valladares, 80 A.D.2d 244, 258, 438 N.Y.S.2d 810;see also Parraguirre v. 27th St. Holding, LLC, 37 A.D.3d 793, 793โ€“794, 831 N.Y.S.2d 460;Mathias v. Daily News, 301 A.D.2d 503, 504, 752 N.Y.S.2d 896;Great W. Bank v. Terio, 200 A.D.2d 608, 606 N.Y.S.2d 903). Here, there is no evidence that the respondent would be prejudiced.

  2. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fisch

    103 A.D.3d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 18 times

    โ€œAn application for leave to discontinue an action without prejudice โ€˜is addressed to the legal, not the arbitrary, discretion of the court,โ€™ and thus should be granted unless there are reasons which would justify its denialโ€ ( Valladares v. Valladares, 80 A.D.2d 244, 257โ€“258, 438 N.Y.S.2d 810,mod. on other grounds sub nom. Tucker v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 378, 449 N.Y.S.2d 683, 434 N.E.2d 1050, quoting Winans v. Winans, 124 N.Y. 140, 145, 26 N.E. 293). โ€œThe general rule is that plaintiff should be permitted to discontinue the action without prejudice, unless defendant would be prejudiced therebyโ€ ( Valladares v. Valladares, 80 A.D.2d at 258, 438 N.Y.S.2d 810;see Brenhouse v. Anthony Indus., 156 A.D.2d 411, 412, 548 N.Y.S.2d 533;see also Mathias v. Daily News, 301 A.D.2d 503, 504, 752 N.Y.S.2d 896; Parraguirre v. 27th St. Holding, LLC, 37 A.D.3d 793, 793โ€“794, 831 N.Y.S.2d 460;Great W. Bank v. Terio, 200 A.D.2d 608, 606 N.Y.S.2d 903). Here, there was no basis for the Supreme Court's directive that the voluntary discontinuance of this action be โ€œwith prejudice.โ€

  3. Walden-Bailey as Assignee of Siegel v. Erie Ins. Co.

    50 Misc. 3d 51 (N.Y. App. Term 2015)   Cited 2 times

    By order dated January 7, 2014, the Civil Court (Cheree A. Buggs, J.) denied the branch of defendant's motion seeking to vacate or modify the February 6, 2013 order and implicitly denied the branches of defendant's motion seeking attorney's fees and sanctions. Generally, courts are reluctant to compel a party to litigate (see DuBray v. Warner Bros. Records, 236 A.D.2d 312, 314, 653 N.Y.S.2d 592 1997 ), and it is well settled that courts have the discretion to grant a motion for discontinuance, without prejudice, if no special circumstances exist, such as prejudice to a substantial right of the defendant or other improper consequences (see Tucker v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 378, 383, 449 N.Y.S.2d 683, 434 N.E.2d 1050 1982; GMAC Mtge., LLC v. Bisceglie, 109 A.D.3d 874, 876, 973 N.Y.S.2d 225 2013; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fisch, 103 A.D.3d 622, 622, 959 N.Y.S.2d 260 2013; Mathias v. Daily News, 301 A.D.2d 503, 504, 752 N.Y.S.2d 896 2003; Valladares v. Valladares, 80 A.D.2d 244, 257โ€“258, 438 N.Y.S.2d 810 1981, mod. on other grounds sub nom. Tucker v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 378, 449 N.Y.S.2d 683, 434 N.E.2d 1050). โ€œUnlike a motion for change of venue which involves the affirmative selection of another forum, a court in granting discontinuance merely makes it possible for the action to be brought elsewhereโ€ (Urbonowicz v. Yarinsky, 290 A.D.2d 922, 923, 737 N.Y.S.2d 398 2002 [citations omitted] ).

  4. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Chaplin

    107 A.D.3d 881 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 34 times

    Here, the defendant opposed the plaintiff's cross motion to discontinue this action because the plaintiff employed this procedure solely for the purpose of litigating all claims against her in connection with all applicable mortgages in a separate, pending action. However, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3217(b) to voluntarily discontinue the action, as there was no showing that the defendant would be prejudiced by discontinuance ( see Mathias v. Daily News, 301 A.D.2d 503, 504, 752 N.Y.S.2d 896;see also Blackwell v. Mikevin Mgt. III, LLC, 88 A.D.3d at 837, 931 N.Y.S.2d 116).

  5. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bagley

    104 A.D.3d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff. Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion to voluntarily discontinue the action and to cancel a notice of pendency ( see Mathias v. Daily News, L.P., 301 A.D.2d 503, 504, 752 N.Y.S.2d 896). The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant's motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. That branch of the motion was rendered academic when the action was discontinued.

  6. Expedite Video Conf. Servs. v. Botello

    67 A.D.3d 961 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 29 times

    The determination of a motion for leave to voluntarily discontinue an action, without prejudice, pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b), rests within the sound discretion of the court ( see Tucker v Tucker, 55 NY2d 378, 383). In the absence of special circumstances, such as prejudice to a substantial right of the defendant, or other improper consequences, a motion for a voluntary discontinuance should be granted ( see Tucker v Tucker, 55 NY2d 378; Eugenia VI Venture Holdings, Ltd. v MapleWood Equity Partners, L.P., 38 AD3d 264; Parraguirre v 27th St. Holding, LLC, 37 AD3d 793; Mathias v Daily News, 301 AD2d 503; Urbonowicz v Yarinsky, 290 AD2d 922, 923; County of Westchester v Welton Becket Assoc., 102 AD2d 34). Here, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion to voluntarily discontinue the action, as there was no showing of special circumstances ( see Citibank v Nagrotsky, 239 AD2d 456).

  7. Pearson v. N.Y

    43 A.D.3d 92 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 38 times

    I find no basis, however, to disturb the order granting plaintiff's separate motion for leave to discontinue the action without prejudice to renewal insofar as it pertains to the Morgan defendants. The determination of a motion for leave to discontinue an action without prejudice pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b) rests within the sound discretion of the trial court ( Mathias v Daily News, 301 AD2d 503, 504, citing Tucker v Tucker, 55 NY2d 378, 383). Here, no "special circumstances" ( Tucker, 55 NY2d at 383) exist which would necessitate the denial of the motion.

  8. Parraguirre v. 27th St. Holding, LLC

    37 A.D.3d 793 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 21 times

    The determination of a motion for leave to voluntarily discontinue an action without prejudice pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b) rests within the sound discretion of the court ( see Tucker v Tucker, 55 NY2d 378, 383). In the absence of special circumstances, such as prejudice to a substantial right of the defendant, or other improper consequences, a motion for a voluntary discontinuance should be granted ( see Mathias v Daily News, 301 AD2d 503; Urbonowicz v Yarinsky, 290 AD2d 922, 923; Great W. Bank v Terio, 200 AD2d 608). Additionally, it is within the court's discretion to allow a plaintiff to voluntarily discontinue an action in one venue to enable him or her to commence a second action for the same relief in another venue ( see Carter v Howland Hook Hous. Co., Inc., 19 AD3d 146; Urbonowicz v Yarinsky, supra; Ruderman v Brunn, 65 AD2d 771).

  9. Kaplan v. Ossining

    35 A.D.3d 816 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 25 times

    The record supports a finding that the plaintiffs were merely attempting to circumvent the effect of a preceding conditional order of preclusion ( see Venture I, Inc. v Voutsinas, 8 AD3d 475). "A plaintiff should not be permitted to discontinue an action without prejudice for the purpose of avoiding an adverse order of the court" ( Casey v Custom Crushing Materials, 309 AD2d 726, 727; see Schachter v Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 21 AD3d 1024, 1025; cf. Mathias v Daily News, 301 AD2d 503, 504; St Pierre v Ostreich, 123 AD2d 857).

  10. In the Matter of Astoria Sports Complex, Inc.

    5 A.D.3d 681 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting the motion for leave to discontinue the proceeding ( see CPLR 3217[b]; Business Corporation Law ยง 1116; Mathias v. Daily News, 301 A.D.2d 503; compare Matter of Hung Yuk Ong, 299 A.D.2d 173; Matter of Musilli, 134 A.D.2d 15). The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.