City of Utica v. Hanna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of Utica v. Hanna

220 A.D. 806

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

DecidedMay 15, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D. 806 (City of Utica v. Hanna) 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

City of Utica v. Hanna, 220 A.D. 806 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion of plaintiff for stay of proceedings pending appeal from order entered February 15, 1927, denied. Motion by defendant to dismiss appeal granted unless appeal is ready for argument on May seventeenth. We think the proceedings on the reference to Judge Emerson, pending before him at the time of his death, were vacated thereby. Notwithstanding the original report of the referee, the entire matter was in effect recommitted to him and went down with his death. There is no reason why the appeal should not be promptly argued as ordered above. Present— Hubbs, P. J., Clark, Sears, Crouch and Taylor, JJ.

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

Motion of plaintiff for stay of proceedings pending appeal from order entered February 15, 1927, denied. Motion by defendant to dismiss appeal granted unless appeal is ready for argument on May seventeenth. We think the proceedings on the reference to Judge Emerson, pending before him at the time of his death, were vacated thereby. Notwithstanding the original report of the referee, the entire matter was in effect recommitted to him and went down with his death. There is no reason why the appeal should not be promptly argued as ordered above. Present— Hubbs, P. J., Clark, Sears, Crouch and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D. 806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-utica-v-hanna-nyappdiv-1927.