From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Michael v. Michael

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1994
209 A.D.2d 1055 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 16, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Herkimer County, Tenney, J.

Present — Lawton, J.P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint withdrawn. Memorandum: Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to discontinue the divorce action. A plaintiff should be permitted to discontinue an action at any time unless substantial rights of a defendant will be prejudiced (Matter of Arsenault v. Arsenault, 192 A.D.2d 1120; County of Westchester v. Becket Assocs., 102 A.D.2d 34, 49, affd 66 N.Y.2d 642; Rosenberg v. 3130 Grand Concourse, 23 A.D.2d 555; Louis R. Shapiro, Inc. v. Milspemes Corp., 20 A.D.2d 857). This action was not pending for an inordinate amount of time (cf., Ruppert v. Ruppert, 192 A.D.2d 925), and defendant can proceed on his counterclaim for divorce. No prejudice to defendant was identified other than frustration or delay, which are not types of prejudice that the law recognizes (see, Cooper v. Cooper, 103 Misc.2d 689, 695).


Summaries of

Michael v. Michael

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1994
209 A.D.2d 1055 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Michael v. Michael

Case Details

Full title:SHARON L. MICHAEL, Appellant, v. ANDREW L. MICHAEL, Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 16, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 1055 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
619 N.Y.S.2d 1012

Citing Cases

Venture v. Equity Partners

Defendant's "limited opposition" to plaintiff's motion to discontinue consented to a discontinuance provided…

J.N. v. S.S.F.

The mother's concerns about potentially having to incur additional costs and expenses should the father…