Majority
p. 811PHILIP HANO & CO. v. GRETSCH. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. April 13, 1912.) Argued April term, 1912, before SEABURY, GUY, and GERARD, JJ.
Headnote
Action (§ 57[1] )—Consolidation.Two actions between the same parties, upon the same written instrument, with substantially the same issues, one in the City Court, and the other in the Municipal Court of New York City, should on motion be consolidated.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Action, Cent. Dig. §§ 632-675; Dec. Dig. § 57.*]
Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.
Action by Philip Hano & Co. against Max J. Gretsch. Prom an order denying defendant’s motion to consolidate, he appeals. Reversed, and motion granted.
Simeon Goodelman, of New York City, for appellant.
Louis E. Felix, of New York City, for respondent.
The plaintiff instituted one action against the defendant in the City Court of the City of-New York, and subsequently instituted another action against the defendant in the Municipal Court of the City of New York. The causes of action alleged in these two
p. 812
actions are between the same parties, are brought upon the same written instrument, and the issues are substantially the same. In view of the circumstances disclosed above, we are of the opinion that the motion should have been granted, and the two actions consolidated.
Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs. All concur.