General
Herman Meyer, Respondent, v. Philip Merritt et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.); Louis L. Brizel, Appellant, v. U. S. Hat Band Mills, Inc., et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.); Dwight Gardner, an Infant by His Guardian ad Litem, Marion Gardner et al., Respondents, v. Addie M. Merritt, et al., Respondents. (Action No. 3.); Rosita Brizel et al., Appellants, v. U. S. Hat Band Mills, Inc., et al., Respondents. (Action No. 4.); U. S. Hat Band Mills, Inc., Respondent, v. Addie Merritt et al., Respondents. (Action No. 5.); Richard O. Riley, an Infant, by Willie O. Riley, His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Respondents, v. Addie M. Merritt et al., Respondents. (Action No. 6.)
7 A.D.2d 917·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1959·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Herman Meyer, Respondent, v. Philip Merritt et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Louis L. Brizel, Appellant, v. U. S. Hat Band Mills, Inc., et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.) Dwight Gardner, an Infant by His Guardian ad Litem, Marion Gardner et al., Respondents, v. Addie M. Merritt, et al., Respondents. (Action No. 3.) Rosita Brizel et al., Appellants, v. U. S. Hat Band Mills, Inc., et al., Respondents. (Action No. 4.) U. S. Hat Band Mills, Inc., Respondent, v. Addie Merritt et al., Respondents. (Action No. 5.) Richard O. Riley, an Infant, by Willie O. Riley, His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Respondents, v. Addie M. Merritt et al., Respondents. (Action No. 6.)
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from an order (1) granting the motion of respondents Addie M. Merritt and Philip Merritt to transfer Action No. 5 from the County Court, Westchester County, and Action No. 6 from the City Court of New Rochelle to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, in which county Actions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are pending, (2) consolidating the six actions, and (3) ordering that respondent Herman Meyer, the plaintiff in Action No. 1, which was the first action instituted, shall have the right to open and close. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondents Addie M. Merritt and Philip Merritt. The discretion of the Special Term was properly exercised (Littman v. JacobowsJci, 2 A D 2d 898; Shea V. Benjamin, 275 App. Div. 1003; Maiorano v. William Sherman, Inc., 196 Mise. 659). Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.