Case Name: Joseph Jacobson et al., Copartners Doing Business as Argenta Products Co., Respondents, v. Harte & Company, Inc., Appellant. (Action No. 1.); Harte & Company, Inc., Appellant, v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Joseph Jacobson et al., Copartners Doing Business as Argenta Products, Third-Party Defendants-Respondents; Heinz Neunteufel et al., Third-Party Defendants. (Action No. 2.); Harte & Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Heinz Neunteufel, Respondent. (Action No. 3.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1965-05-20
Citations: 23 A.D.2d 843
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph Jacobson et al., Copartners Doing Business as Argenta Products Co., Respondents, v. Harte & Company, Inc., Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Harte & Company, Inc., Appellant, v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Joseph Jacobson et al., Copartners Doing Business as Argenta Products, Third-Party Defendants-Respondents; Heinz Neunteufel et al., Third-Party Defendants. (Action No. 2.) Harte & Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Heinz Neunteufel, Respondent. (Action No. 3.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 843–844

Head Matter:
Joseph Jacobson et al., Copartners Doing Business as Argenta Products Co., Respondents, v. Harte & Company, Inc., Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Harte & Company, Inc., Appellant, v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Joseph Jacobson et al., Copartners Doing Business as Argenta Products, Third-Party Defendants-Respondents; Heinz Neunteufel et al., Third-Party Defendants. (Action No. 2.) Harte & Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Heinz Neunteufel, Respondent. (Action No. 3.)

Opinion:
Order entered November 12, 1964, upon the motion of plaintiffs-respondents in Action No. 1 and third-party defendants- respondents in Action No. 2 and upon the cross motion of defendant and third-party plaintiff-respondent in Action No. 2, directing a joint trial of said actions and of Action No. 3 and staying the trial of Action No. 1, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion and cross motion denied. Certain issues in Action No. 2 — -which the cross movant itself refers to as "a very complicated, time-consuming case " — differ from those in the other actions, and in our opinion the probability of confusion attendant upon a joint trial may not be discounted. It is noted that the instant motions were not undertaken until Action No. 1 was ready for trial. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.