Crescent Puritan Laundry Co. v. McNamara

254 A.D. 646, 3 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6867
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 25, 1938·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order so far as appealed from affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: We do not find our decision in Gibbs v. Sokol (216 App. Div. 260) controlling under the circumstances here shown. However, the motion called for an exercise of discretion and required all circumstances to be taken into consideration. (Van Devort v. K. & H. Evaporating Co., Inc., 252 App. Div. 8.) No absolute rule is to be laid down in this type of motion and we do not find an abuse of discretion in the order now before us. All concur. (The portion of the order appealed from determines the plaintiff in a consolidated action.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Taylor, JJ.

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

Crescent Puritan Laundry Co. v. McNamara, 254 A.D. 646, 3 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6867 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

254 A.D. 646 (Crescent Puritan Laundry Co. v. McNamara) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Salamanca v. Rocell Construction Co.
24 Misc. 2d 547 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
Lehman v. Dictograph Products, Inc.
5 A.D.2d 688 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1957)