Bardonek v. Stanley Bardonek, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bardonek v. Stanley Bardonek, Inc.

282 A.D. 725, 122 N.Y.S.2d 371, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4807

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 22, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 725 (Bardonek v. Stanley Bardonek, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bardonek v. Stanley Bardonek, Inc., 282 A.D. 725, 122 N.Y.S.2d 371, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4807 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County, denying a motion to dismiss for nonprosecution an appeal to that court. Order affirmed, without costs. The notice of appeal to the County Court demanded a trial de novo in compliance with section 442 of the Justice Court Act. Thereafter, the action was at issue in the County Court (Justice Ct. Act, § 446). Either party could have placed the case on the calendar for trial (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 150). Appellant did not do so. Therefore, there was not an abuse of discretion in the denial of appellant’s motion because the respondent did not move the action for trial. Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County, denying a motion to dismiss for nonprosecution an appeal to that court. Order affirmed, without costs. The notice of appeal to the County Court demanded a trial de novo in compliance with section 442 of the Justice Court Act. Thereafter, the action was at issue in the County Court (Justice Ct. Act, § 446). Either party could have placed the case on the calendar for trial (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 150). Appellant did not do so. Therefore, there was not an abuse of discretion in the denial of appellant’s motion because the respondent did not move the action for trial. Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 725, 122 N.Y.S.2d 371, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bardonek-v-stanley-bardonek-inc-nyappdiv-1953.