Ettlinger v. Cutrone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ettlinger v. Cutrone

25 A.D.2d 534, 267 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4959

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 534 (Ettlinger v. Cutrone) 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

Ettlinger v. Cutrone, 25 A.D.2d 534, 267 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4959 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant Ralph Cutrone appeals from an order of the Supreme 'Court, Kings County, entered July 6, 1965, which granted plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the calendar and directed the parties to submit to pretrial examinations. Order reversed insofar as it applies to defendant Cutrone, with $25 costs and disbursements, and motion denied as to said defendant. The action having been dismissed as against appellant by a prior order of the court, dated July 24, 1963, on the ground that it was barred by the Statute of Limitations, it should ¡act have been restored to the calendar as against appellant. Although respondent has consented to reversal of the order appealed from, as to appellant, on ¡the record presented it is our opinion that he should, nevertheless, pay costs On this appeal.

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur»

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant Ralph Cutrone appeals from an order of the Supreme 'Court, Kings County, entered July 6, 1965, which granted plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the calendar and directed the parties to submit to pretrial examinations. Order reversed insofar as it applies to defendant Cutrone, with $25 costs and disbursements, and motion denied as to said defendant. The action having been dismissed as against appellant by a prior order of the court, dated July 24, 1963, on the ground that it was barred by the Statute of Limitations, it should ¡act have been restored to the calendar as against appellant. Although respondent has consented to reversal of the order appealed from, as to appellant, on ¡the record presented it is our opinion that he should, nevertheless, pay costs On this appeal.

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur»

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 534, 267 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ettlinger-v-cutrone-nyappdiv-1966.