Glicenstein v. Fust

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glicenstein v. Fust

19 A.D.2d 841, 244 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3069

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A.D.2d 841 (Glicenstein v. Fust) 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

Glicenstein v. Fust, 19 A.D.2d 841, 244 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3069 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for injury to property, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 20, 1963, which (1) granted plaintiffs application to vacate a prior order of said court dismissing the action and to restore it to the General Calendar; and (2) directed the Calendar Clerk to restore the action to its regular place on the calendar. Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Appellants have failed to submit a proper record as required by statute and rule (former Civ. Prae. Act, § 616; Rules Civ. Prae., rule 234; Whipple v. Bipson, 29 App. Div. 70; Matter of Gowdey, 101 App. Div. 275; Levine v. Garr, 11 A D 2d 721; Bennett Excavators Corp. v. Lasker-Goldman Corp., 11 A D 2d 734). Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Rabin 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 injury to property, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 20, 1963, which (1) granted plaintiffs application to vacate a prior order of said court dismissing the action and to restore it to the General Calendar; and (2) directed the Calendar Clerk to restore the action to its regular place on the calendar. Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Appellants have failed to submit a proper record as required by statute and rule (former Civ. Prae. Act, § 616; Rules Civ. Prae., rule 234; Whipple v. Bipson, 29 App. Div. 70; Matter of Gowdey, 101 App. Div. 275; Levine v. Garr, 11 A D 2d 721; Bennett Excavators Corp. v. Lasker-Goldman Corp., 11 A D 2d 734). Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 841, 244 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glicenstein-v-fust-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack