Broderick v. White

New York Supreme Court

Broderick v. White

148 Misc. 632, 266 N.Y.S. 223, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1255

DecidedJuly 20, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 148 Misc. 632 (Broderick v. White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Broderick v. White, 148 Misc. 632, 266 N.Y.S. 223, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1255 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Schmuck, J.

The plaintiff generally acceding to the purposes of the application, it is granted, but conditionally upon compliance with the conditions hereafter exacted. The issue is to remain as of its original date and the measures needed to effectuate the relief granted shall not prejudice any of the proceedings had herein. No application shall be made by the defendant to delay the trial, even though a postponement may be reasonable in order to perfect any proceeding made necessary by the allowance of this application. If the impleaded party shall succeed in delaying the trial as to him the defendant is required to discontinue the cross action hereby permitted. Finally, the defendant, and not the plaintiff (Municipal Service R. E. Co. v. D. B. & M. Holding Corp., 257 N. Y. 423), is required to serve upon the party permitted to be impleaded the necessary supplemental pleadings. The last condition seems to be the proper procedure under subdivision 2 of section 193 of the Civil Practice Act. (Marsh v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 141 Misc. 484.) Settle order.

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

Schmuck, J.

The plaintiff generally acceding to the purposes of the application, it is granted, but conditionally upon compliance with the conditions hereafter exacted. The issue is to remain as of its original date and the measures needed to effectuate the relief granted shall not prejudice any of the proceedings had herein. No application shall be made by the defendant to delay the trial, even though a postponement may be reasonable in order to perfect any proceeding made necessary by the allowance of this application. If the impleaded party shall succeed in delaying the trial as to him the defendant is required to discontinue the cross action hereby permitted. Finally, the defendant, and not the plaintiff (Municipal Service R. E. Co. v. D. B. & M. Holding Corp., 257 N. Y. 423), is required to serve upon the party permitted to be impleaded the necessary supplemental pleadings. The last condition seems to be the proper procedure under subdivision 2 of section 193 of the Civil Practice Act. (Marsh v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 141 Misc. 484.) Settle order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 Misc. 632, 266 N.Y.S. 223, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broderick-v-white-nysupct-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack