Jacobs v Grant

Annotate this Case
Jacobs v Grant 2011 NY Slip Op 08728 Decided on November 29, 2011 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 29, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
PETER B. SKELOS
RUTH C. BALKIN
SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
2010-06127
(Index No. 2303/09)

[*1]David B. Jacobs, appellant,

v

Georgia Grant, et al., defendants, Hawthorne Gardens Owners Corp., respondent.




David B. Jacobs, Dix Hills, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Schneider Mitola, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Jeffrey V. Basso of
counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), entered May 7, 2010, which, among other things, denied that branch of his motion which was to consolidate this action with a summary proceeding entitled Matter of Hawthorne Gardens Owners Corp. v Jacobs, pending in the District Court, Nassau County, under Index No. SP 004412/09.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of his motion which was to consolidate this action with a summary proceeding entitled Matter of Hawthorne Gardens Owners Corp. v Jacobs, pending in the District Court, Nassau County, under Index No. SP 004412/09 (see CPLR 602[a]; 107-48 Queens Blvd. Holding Corp. v ABC Brokerage, 238 AD2d 557; Titleserv, Inc. v Zenobio, 210 AD2d 310, 311).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
PRUDENTI, P.J., SKELOS, BALKIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.