From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Henderson v. Hardware Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 10, 1976
51 A.D.2d 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Opinion

February 10, 1976


Order entered October 15, 1975, in the Supreme Court, New York County, unanimously affirmed, with $40 costs and disbursements to third-party defendant-respondent. The order appealed from severed the third-party indemnity action based on medical malpractice from the main action brought against defendants-appellants (appellants) to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by reason of the alleged negligence of appellants. Appellants urge that the court erred in severing the third-party action and referring it to a medical malpractice panel by reason of the court's stated belief that it was mandated to do so, and that the main action and the third-party action should be tried together. While severance was not mandated, the court did not rest its action solely on that basis. The court expressed the desire to give plaintiff an early trial since a special preference had been given because of age, and also the desire of the court to simplify issues for a jury. The action taken was a proper exercise of judicial discretion. The assertion of laches on the part of the third-party defendant as a possible barrier to severance has been examined and found to be without merit.

Concur — Stevens, P.J., Kupferman, Lupiano, Birns and Lane, JJ.


Summaries of

Henderson v. Hardware Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 10, 1976
51 A.D.2d 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)
Case details for

Henderson v. Hardware Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ALEXANDER HENDERSON, Respondent, v. WEIN HARDWARE CO., INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Feb 10, 1976

Citations

51 A.D.2d 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Citing Cases

Santos v. Sure Iron Works

Lastly, we find severance to be appropriate in this case. A court may properly sever cross claims and…

Katikireddy v. Espinal

Moreover, plaintiffs indicate that discovery has been complete in the main action and it has been ready to be…