Cramer v. Perine

212 A.D. 849
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 15, 1925
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 212 A.D. 849 (Cramer v. Perine) 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
Cramer v. Perine, 212 A.D. 849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The appeal was never argued in the Court of Appeals. When the case was reached for argument in that court, the judges declined to hear it. No suggestion was then made by the defendant that the appeal should be dismissed. The parties evidently contemplated a continuance of the appeal with an argument at a later day. Several months afterwards the plaintiff made a motion, not in connection with a hearing or argument, to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute and upon this motion the appeal was dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of the motion. Under these circumstances we are of the opinion that the item for argument in the Court of Appeals was improperly included in the bill of costs. (Matter of Wray Drug Co., 93 App. Div. 456.) All concur. Present — Hubbs, P. J., Clark, Davis, Sears and Crouch, JJ. Order modified by inserting a provision that the item in the bill of costs, “ Appeal to Court of Appeals for argument, $60,” be disallowed, and as so modified the order is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant. Motion to receive the affidavit of J. Neil Mahoney, verified January 5, 1925, and of Clark H. Timerman, verified January 5, 1925, denied.

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

Related

Banas v. New York Telephone Co.
179 Misc. 200 (New York Supreme Court, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
212 A.D. 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cramer-v-perine-nyappdiv-1925.