Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Kintavia CARTER, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. HOWLAND HOOK HOUSING CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered January 14, 2005, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in an apartment building owned by defendant, granted plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3217(b) to discontinue the action without prejudice, upon condition that plaintiffs pay defendant's costs and disbursements incurred in this action up to the date of discontinuance plus defendant's attorneys' fees incurred on the motion to discontinue, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The action was venued in New York County based on the location of defendant building owner's principal office. After service of an answer and bill of particulars, the holding of a preliminary conference, and a change of plaintiffs' attorney, plaintiffs moved to discontinue the action. Plaintiffs asserted that their new attorney discovered that the building was managed by a corporation with a principal office in Brooklyn, and that a voluntary discontinuance would allow them to commence a second action in Kings County. The motion was properly granted upon conditions that eliminated any prejudice attributable to the discontinuance (see Schimansky v. Nelson, 50 A.D.2d 634, 374 N.Y.S.2d 771 [1975]; Urbonowicz v. Yarinsky, 290 A.D.2d 922, 737 N.Y.S.2d 398 [2002] ). In the latter regard, the motion court aptly noted defendant's failure to show that the discontinuance will cause it to incur additional attorneys' fees, and appropriately limited plaintiffs' payment of defendants' attorneys' fees to those incurred on the instant motion. We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 07, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)