Anatomy Of Bad Lawyering – Part II

Anatomy of Bad Lawyering – Part II

[one_half]

Part I ended with the parties having served cross-complaints:  first Acme served Smith, then Smith served Acme.

Both complaints addressed the same nucleus of operative facts- the exact same lawsuit now, in fact, existed TWICE.  Rather than move to consolidate the actions,  Acme files a motion to dismiss.

[definition of a “motion”:

https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/6jd/forms/SRForms/m_howto.pdf]

Seems like a great idea:  get rid of the pleading that was filed second.

[definition of a “pleading”:¬†pleadings:¬†complaint or petition, answer, reply, (and bill of particulars)- see¬†https://www.nycourts.gov/lawlibraries/glossary.shtml][/one_half]

[one_half_last]frustration

 

 

 

 

However, unfortunately for Acme, ¬†Smith had an absolute right to file his own complaint, because there is no “mandatory joinder” in New York State courts. See¬†www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/chase05.doc, page 30-31.¬†NOTE: this document will automatically download as a Microsoft Word file.

Acme’s only option here, and one that arguably HAD to be made, was a motion to consolidate (CPLR ¬ß 602) the two actions into one action, under one index number, and filed under one E-file docket.

[/one_half_last]

 

Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of