Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents in action No. 1 and the plaintiff-respondent in action No. 2 appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
We find unpersuasive the appellants' contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying their application to consolidate the actions. The record indicates that action No. 1 was commenced against the appellants because certain excavation and construction work in which they were involved...
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.