Coopersmith v. Riverhead Savings Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coopersmith v. Riverhead Savings Bank

257 A.D. 969, 13 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8737

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

DecidedJune 12, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 969 (Coopersmith v. Riverhead Savings Bank) 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

Coopersmith v. Riverhead Savings Bank, 257 A.D. 969, 13 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Action for balance alleged to be due under a contract of employment and for extra work and disbursements incident thereto. Order on reargument, as resettled, granting defendant’s motion to change the venue from Queens county to Suffolk county and denying plaintiff’s cross-motion to retain the case in Queens county on the ground of convenience of witnesses, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, defendant’s motion denied and plaintiff’s motion granted, without costs. The plaintiff’s original affidavits on his cross-motion, when read in connection with the affidavits submitted on the renewal of the motion granted by the Special Term, substantially comply with the requirements of motions to determine the proper place of trial of actions in respect of convenience of witnesses. Plaintiff’s appeal from order on reargument dismissed. Lazansky,' P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Action for balance alleged to be due under a contract of employment and for extra work and disbursements incident thereto. Order on reargument, as resettled, granting defendant’s motion to change the venue from Queens county to Suffolk county and denying plaintiff’s cross-motion to retain the case in Queens county on the ground of convenience of witnesses, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, defendant’s motion denied and plaintiff’s motion granted, without costs. The plaintiff’s original affidavits on his cross-motion, when read in connection with the affidavits submitted on the renewal of the motion granted by the Special Term, substantially comply with the requirements of motions to determine the proper place of trial of actions in respect of convenience of witnesses. Plaintiff’s appeal from order on reargument dismissed. Lazansky,' P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 969, 13 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coopersmith-v-riverhead-savings-bank-nyappdiv-1939.