Burnstine v. Reddy

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Burnstine v. Reddy

107 N.Y.S. 626

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 12, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 107 N.Y.S. 626 (Burnstine v. Reddy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burnstine v. Reddy, 107 N.Y.S. 626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The court below refused to grant an adjournment asked for by the plaintiff after the case had been adjourned previously several times, and, the plaintiff being unable to proceed, judgment in favor of the defendant was rendered against the plaintiff. The grounds set forth in the plaintiff’s affidavit as a basis for the adjournment were not such as to absolutely require that the motion should be granted. The application was addressed to the favor of the court, and the granting or refusal of it was within the court’s discretion. The judgment, however, should have been rendered without prejudice to a new action.

[627]*627Judgment modified, by directing that the same be without prejudice to a new action, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs to either party-on this appeal.

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

PER CURIAM.

The court below refused to grant an adjournment asked for by the plaintiff after the case had been adjourned previously several times, and, the plaintiff being unable to proceed, judgment in favor of the defendant was rendered against the plaintiff. The grounds set forth in the plaintiff’s affidavit as a basis for the adjournment were not such as to absolutely require that the motion should be granted. The application was addressed to the favor of the court, and the granting or refusal of it was within the court’s discretion. The judgment, however, should have been rendered without prejudice to a new action.

[627]*627Judgment modified, by directing that the same be without prejudice to a new action, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs to either party-on this appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 N.Y.S. 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burnstine-v-reddy-nyappterm-1907.