The motion for removal and joinder was made by the defendant Rak in all three actions. Special Term noted that Action Nos. 1 and 2 had been commenced a year before Action No. 3, and that they were on the Trial Calendar and ready for immediate trial, whereas in Action No. 3 pretrial proceedings had not been noticed; that the plaintiffs in all three actions opposed the motion because of the prejudice to them which would result from removal and joinder. Special Term also noted...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.