Case Name: Harry Panzer, Respondent, v. Irving W. Panzer et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1948-11-15
Citations: 274 A.D. 940
Docket Number: 
Parties: Harry Panzer, Respondent, v. Irving W. Panzer et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 274
Pages: 940–940

Head Matter:
Harry Panzer, Respondent, v. Irving W. Panzer et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Opinion:
Action for a partnership dissolution and accounting, etc., wherein one of the defendants sets forth a counterclaim against the plaintiff to recover on a contract for the sale of stock. Order dismissing the counterclaim, without prejudice to the bringing of a separate action for the cause set forth therein, and the judgment entered on the order, reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion to dismiss the counterclaim denied, without costs. Plaintiff's time within which to reply to the counterclaim is' extended until ten days after the entry of an order hereon. The sole test consonant with the purpose of a counterclaim should be whether or not the counterclaim can be conveniently and justly determined in connection with the plaintiff's cause of action. (Second Annual Report of N. Y. Judicial Council, 1936, pp. 117, 123.) In this case even if it be assumed that the counterclaim does not meet the test, it is not required at this stage to dismiss the counterclaim and relegate the party to the bringing of a separate action. Under section 262 of the Civil Practice Act, the court may sever the causes and order separate trials or, if necessary, direct the priority of ¡he trials. Carswell, Acting P.J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.