Beal v. Byrnes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beal v. Byrnes

242 A.D. 784

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D. 784 (Beal v. Byrnes) 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

Beal v. Byrnes, 242 A.D. 784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Order dismissing action for neglect to prosecute modified by striking out the words “ unless the action is noticed for trial and a note of issue filed by the plaintiff for the May, 1934, term,” and as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to defendants Byrnes. The death of defendant McMahon who, it is shown, was the broker who brought about the sale and was, therefore, a material witness, required, in the circumstances, a granting of the motion to dismiss the action for neglect to prosecute. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

Order dismissing action for neglect to prosecute modified by striking out the words “ unless the action is noticed for trial and a note of issue filed by the plaintiff for the May, 1934, term,” and as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to defendants Byrnes. The death of defendant McMahon who, it is shown, was the broker who brought about the sale and was, therefore, a material witness, required, in the circumstances, a granting of the motion to dismiss the action for neglect to prosecute. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D. 784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beal-v-byrnes-nyappdiv-1934.