295 Classon Ave. Co. v. City of New York

267 A.D. 961, 47 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5753
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 11, 1944·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

-Appeal from order denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve and file a demand for a trial by jury nunc pro tunc. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, without costs. The denial of the motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. The situation herein comes clearly within New York Investors, Inc., V. Laurelton Homes, Inc. (236 App. Div. 712) and Bafkind v. Isaacs (264 App. Div. 742). Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Lewis and Aldrich, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 1001.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

295 Classon Ave. Co. v. City of New York, 267 A.D. 961, 47 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5753 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

267 A.D. 961 (295 Classon Ave. Co. v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Probate of the Will of Warren
206 Misc. 825 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1954)
Schwartz v. Sunlight Apartments, Inc.
274 A.D. 901 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1948)