Covello v. Rosen & Rosen Brick Masons, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Covello v. Rosen & Rosen Brick Masons, Inc.

282 A.D. 886, 124 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5330

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

DecidedOctober 19, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 886 (Covello v. Rosen & Rosen Brick Masons, Inc.) 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

Covello v. Rosen & Rosen Brick Masons, Inc., 282 A.D. 886, 124 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5330 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by plaintiff from an order denying his motion for an order directing that the action, which had been placed on the Deferred Calendar, be restored to the General Calendar of the Supreme Court, Kings County, for trial in its regular order. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted, without costs. The motion will be regarded as one made under paragraph (6) of subdivision (bb) of rule 2 of the Kings County Supreme Court Rules. The record discloses facts which have occurred subsequent to the making of the order of deferment which, in our opinion, require the restoration of the action to the General Calendar. Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MaeCrate and Beldock, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by plaintiff from an order denying his motion for an order directing that the action, which had been placed on the Deferred Calendar, be restored to the General Calendar of the Supreme Court, Kings County, for trial in its regular order. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted, without costs. The motion will be regarded as one made under paragraph (6) of subdivision (bb) of rule 2 of the Kings County Supreme Court Rules. The record discloses facts which have occurred subsequent to the making of the order of deferment which, in our opinion, require the restoration of the action to the General Calendar. Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MaeCrate and Beldock, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 886, 124 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/covello-v-rosen-rosen-brick-masons-inc-nyappdiv-1953.