Emanuel v. Brower

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Emanuel v. Brower

243 A.D. 722, 277 N.Y.S. 1000

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D. 722 (Emanuel v. Brower) 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

Emanuel v. Brower, 243 A.D. 722, 277 N.Y.S. 1000 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the County Court of Nassau county granting motion for reargument, and on reargument [723]*723denying defendant’s motion to vacate the prior order and to direct, pursuant to rule 102 of the Rules of Civil Practice, the service of a second amended complaint, reversed on the law, without costs, and the motion granted, without costs; the amended complaint to be served within ten days from the entry of the order herein. There was an improper joinder of causes of action. (DeWolfe v. Abraham, 151 N. Y. 186, 189; Civ. Prac. Act, § 258.) “It does not follow that two causes of action, originating at the same time, arose as a matter of law out of the same transaction, or are proved by the same evidence. (Anderson v. Hill, 53 Barb. 245, 246.)” Appeal from order entered November 20, 1934, dismissed. The order on the motion for reargument supersedes the order on the first motion. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Scudder and Johnston, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the County Court of Nassau county granting motion for reargument, and on reargument [723]*723denying defendant’s motion to vacate the prior order and to direct, pursuant to rule 102 of the Rules of Civil Practice, the service of a second amended complaint, reversed on the law, without costs, and the motion granted, without costs; the amended complaint to be served within ten days from the entry of the order herein. There was an improper joinder of causes of action. (DeWolfe v. Abraham, 151 N. Y. 186, 189; Civ. Prac. Act, § 258.) “It does not follow that two causes of action, originating at the same time, arose as a matter of law out of the same transaction, or are proved by the same evidence. (Anderson v. Hill, 53 Barb. 245, 246.)” Appeal from order entered November 20, 1934, dismissed. The order on the motion for reargument supersedes the order on the first motion. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Scudder and Johnston, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D. 722, 277 N.Y.S. 1000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emanuel-v-brower-nyappdiv-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack