Drabik v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Drabik v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

154 Misc. 829, 279 N.Y.S. 268, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1134

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 21, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 154 Misc. 829 (Drabik v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Drabik v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance, 154 Misc. 829, 279 N.Y.S. 268, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1134 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The trial judge vacated the decision and judgment for the reason, as he states in his opinion, that although a decision was rendered by him within fourteen days it was not filed until fifteen days after final submission, and under the rule prevailing in the First Department, as distinguished from that controlling in the Second Department, the decision and judgment thereon was ineffective. The trial judge was mistaken in his view that there is conflict between the two departments in the respect noted, for, we have uniformly held that the date of the rendering of the decision as distinguished from the date of filing controls (Collins v. Davis, 114 N. Y. Supp. 792), and as the proofs show that the decision was actually rendered within fourteen days it was error to grant plaintiff’s motion.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs, and motion denied. Appeal from order denying reargument dismissed.

All concur; present, Lydon, Hammer and Frankenthaler, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The trial judge vacated the decision and judgment for the reason, as he states in his opinion, that although a decision was rendered by him within fourteen days it was not filed until fifteen days after final submission, and under the rule prevailing in the First Department, as distinguished from that controlling in the Second Department, the decision and judgment thereon was ineffective. The trial judge was mistaken in his view that there is conflict between the two departments in the respect noted, for, we have uniformly held that the date of the rendering of the decision as distinguished from the date of filing controls (Collins v. Davis, 114 N. Y. Supp. 792), and as the proofs show that the decision was actually rendered within fourteen days it was error to grant plaintiff’s motion.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs, and motion denied. Appeal from order denying reargument dismissed.

All concur; present, Lydon, Hammer and Frankenthaler, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 Misc. 829, 279 N.Y.S. 268, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drabik-v-john-hancock-mutual-life-insurance-nyappterm-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack