Forte v. Locke Insulator Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Forte v. Locke Insulator Corp.

243 A.D. 684

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 243 A.D. 684 (Forte v. Locke Insulator Corp.) 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

Forte v. Locke Insulator Corp., 243 A.D. 684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to dismiss appeal denied and motion to substitute administratrix of deceased plaintiff granted. Memorandum: Our determination is based upon the literal language of section 89 of the Civil Practice Act. We have not overlooked decisions which may seem to point in a general direction in conflict with our determination here. (Wood v. Phillips, 11 Abb. Pr. [N. S.] 1; Carr v. Rischer, 119 N. Y. 117, 124; Matter of Tubbiolo, 146 App. Div. 323; Molloy v. Starin, 134 id. 542; Lutz v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 44 id. 256; Kelsey v. Jewett, 34 Hun, 11.) Nevertheless, in none of the cases was the exact situation before the court which we are considering. The statute has been repeatedly amended and in our opinion, particularly in view of the amendments, the statute should now be literally construed. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals on order entered November 14, 1934, denied, with ten dollars costs. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from order denying motion to dismiss appeal and granting motion for substitution of administratrix granted and questions for review certified.

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

Motion to dismiss appeal denied and motion to substitute administratrix of deceased plaintiff granted. Memorandum: Our determination is based upon the literal language of section 89 of the Civil Practice Act. We have not overlooked decisions which may seem to point in a general direction in conflict with our determination here. (Wood v. Phillips, 11 Abb. Pr. [N. S.] 1; Carr v. Rischer, 119 N. Y. 117, 124; Matter of Tubbiolo, 146 App. Div. 323; Molloy v. Starin, 134 id. 542; Lutz v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 44 id. 256; Kelsey v. Jewett, 34 Hun, 11.) Nevertheless, in none of the cases was the exact situation before the court which we are considering. The statute has been repeatedly amended and in our opinion, particularly in view of the amendments, the statute should now be literally construed. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals on order entered November 14, 1934, denied, with ten dollars costs. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from order denying motion to dismiss appeal and granting motion for substitution of administratrix granted and questions for review certified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D. 684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forte-v-locke-insulator-corp-nyappdiv-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack