Dain & Dill, Inc. v. Betterton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dain & Dill, Inc. v. Betterton

43 A.D.2d 589, 350 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3071

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.2d 589 (Dain & Dill, Inc. v. Betterton) 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

Dain & Dill, Inc. v. Betterton, 43 A.D.2d 589, 350 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3071 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by Daniel L. Better-ton from an order of thé Supreme Court, Putnam County, dated May 31, 1973, which, upon said court’s own motion, vacated appellant’s demands for a jury trial and directed that the five actions consolidated for joint trial be tried by the court without a jury. Order reversed, with one bill of $20 costs and disbursements jointly against respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs; the demands for a jury trial are restored; and actions remanded to the trial court for joint trial. On a prior appeal in these cases {Dam & Dill v. Betterton, 39 A D 2d 939) we considered and rejected the contentions now urged in support of the view that certain of the actions here involved cannot satisfactorily be tried before a jury. These cases are long, overdue for trial and the trial should therefore proceed forthwith. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Shapiro and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by Daniel L. Better-ton from an order of thé Supreme Court, Putnam County, dated May 31, 1973, which, upon said court’s own motion, vacated appellant’s demands for a jury trial and directed that the five actions consolidated for joint trial be tried by the court without a jury. Order reversed, with one bill of $20 costs and disbursements jointly against respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs; the demands for a jury trial are restored; and actions remanded to the trial court for joint trial. On a prior appeal in these cases {Dam & Dill v. Betterton, 39 A D 2d 939) we considered and rejected the contentions now urged in support of the view that certain of the actions here involved cannot satisfactorily be tried before a jury. These cases are long, overdue for trial and the trial should therefore proceed forthwith. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Shapiro and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 589, 350 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dain-dill-inc-v-betterton-nyappdiv-1973.