From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bridgemarket Associates v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 9, 1993
190 A.D.2d 561 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

February 9, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene L. Nardelli, J.).


These two actions, while arising from the same set of transactions, do not have complete identity of parties and causes of action, and thus a stay under CPLR 2201 is not warranted (Hope's Windows v Albro Metal Prods. Corp., 93 A.D.2d 711, 712, appeal dismissed 59 N.Y.2d 968).

Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.


Summaries of

Bridgemarket Associates v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 9, 1993
190 A.D.2d 561 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Bridgemarket Associates v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:BRIDGEMARKET ASSOCIATES, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Feb 9, 1993

Citations

190 A.D.2d 561 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Citing Cases

U.S. Bank v. Hilda Jung

As set forth above, plaintiff has standing to sue. With regard to a stay, defendant cannot establish the…

U.S. Bank v. Hilda Jung

As set forth above, plaintiff has standing to sue. With regard to a stay, defendant cannot establish the…