History
  • No items yet
midpage
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Speciner
175 N.Y.S.2d 605
N.Y. App. Div.
1958
Check Treatment

The court should not, in the exercise of discretion, entertain an action for a declaratory judgment where the matter sought to be adjudicated is the subject of another action pending, which when tried, will dispose of all the issues involved in the declaratory judgment action (Storer v. Ripley, 283 App. Div. 973). In the ease before us, not only is such an action pending in the Federal court, but another one, based on the main complaint, is pending in this court. There is accordingly no necessity for the declaratory judgment action and the supplemental complaint seeking that form of relief should be dismissed. The order appealed from is modified on the law and in the court’s discretion *864so as to dismiss the supplemental complaint and stay the original action based on the first complaint until final determination of the Federal action or until further order lifting the stay upon a proper showing of facts as a basis therefor, with costs to the appellant. Settle order. Concur — Botein,* P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and Bergan, JJ.

Case Details

Case Name: Reynolds Metals Co. v. Speciner
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Jul 1, 1958
Citation: 175 N.Y.S.2d 605
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.