Davidson v. Trading Port, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davidson v. Trading Port, Inc.

9 A.D.2d 984, 194 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5301

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 9 A.D.2d 984 (Davidson v. Trading Port, 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

Davidson v. Trading Port, Inc., 9 A.D.2d 984, 194 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5301 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Albany County Special Term removing an action from the City Court of Albany to the Supreme Court, Albany County. The removal was directed pursuant to section 110-a of the Civil Practice Act which provides for the removal of a pending action. Appellant, the defendant herein, argues that the action was not pending within the meaning of the Civil Practice Act and under the Rules of Practice of the City Court of Albany (rule 2 C) because more than [985]*985two years had elapsed after the ease had been placed on the Reserve Calendar of the City Court. The Special Term pointed out that the ease had never been dismissed on the merits, and held that it was still pending even though it was not on the City Court Calendar. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Albany County Special Term removing an action from the City Court of Albany to the Supreme Court, Albany County. The removal was directed pursuant to section 110-a of the Civil Practice Act which provides for the removal of a pending action. Appellant, the defendant herein, argues that the action was not pending within the meaning of the Civil Practice Act and under the Rules of Practice of the City Court of Albany (rule 2 C) because more than [985]*985two years had elapsed after the ease had been placed on the Reserve Calendar of the City Court. The Special Term pointed out that the ease had never been dismissed on the merits, and held that it was still pending even though it was not on the City Court Calendar. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.2d 984, 194 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davidson-v-trading-port-inc-nyappdiv-1959.