Giardino Corp. v. Goldblatt

279 A.D. 912, 110 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5288

Opinion

Although the granting of the motion did not impinge upon the constitutional right to a trial by jury (Steck v. Colorado Fuel & Iron Co., 142 N. Y. 236; 4 Carmody on New York Practice, p. 2692, and cases cited) the record did not warrant the granting of a compulsory order of reference on the ground that the examination of a long account was necessary within the meaning of section 466 of the Civil Practice Act, under long-settled authority. (Davidson v. Sterngass, 279 App. Div. 875, and cases cited therein; Untermyer v. Beinhauer, 105 N. Y. 521.) Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

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

Giardino Corp. v. Goldblatt, 279 A.D. 912, 110 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5288 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

279 A.D. 912 (Giardino Corp. v. Goldblatt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Untermyer v. . Beinhauer
11 N.E. 847 (New York Court of Appeals, 1887)
Steck v. Colorado Fuel & Iron Co.
37 N.E. 1 (New York Court of Appeals, 1894)
Davidson v. Sterngass
279 A.D. 875 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1952)