Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)

Citation
J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
Parent Document
J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
Jurisdiction
New York (state)
Effective Date
1995-09-12

Full Text

713 chars
. In oral argument, petitioner’s counsel indicated that the asterisked clause should be permitted, in order to interpose the claim for Statute of Limitations purposes and to avoid splitting a cause of action. These issues are not before the court, and the court does not rule on them except to indicate that, for the reasons stated, counsel’s view is not a proper basis for either sustaining the three-day notice and petition, or for expanding the summary proceeding. To the extent that any rights flowing to petitioner from the assignment arise from a different transaction and constitute a separate cause of action, their assertion in a separate plenary action would not amount to splitting the cause of action.