Hertz v. Schmidt

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Hertz v. Schmidt

31 Misc. 725, 65 N.Y.S. 225

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 31 Misc. 725 (Hertz v. Schmidt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hertz v. Schmidt, 31 Misc. 725, 65 N.Y.S. 225 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

O’Gorman, J.

Plaintiff’s contention that the court below lost jurisdiction by permitting an adjournment after the commencement of the trial is not well taken. Trials in the Municipal Court are conducted the same as in courts of record (Consol. Act, § 1381), and a justice of the Municipal Court now has the power possessed by a justice of a court of record with respect to the adjournment of a trial, excepting that the trial of an action cannot be adjourned for a longer period than eight days (Consol. Act, § 1362), [726]*726and the trial of a summary proceeding cannot be adjourned for a longer period than ten days (Code Civ. Pro., § 2248), unless by consent. In Boller v. Mayor, 40 N. Y. Super. Ct. 537, there was an unauthorized adjournment for three weeks, and in Kiernan v. Reming, 7 Civ. Pro. 311, no answer was interposed, and consequently there was no trial. These cases, therefore, do not uphold appellant’s position. Aberhall v. Roach, 3 E. D. Smith, 345, and the other cases cited by the appellant, are no longer recognized as authorities, owing to the changes which have since taken place in the law governing the Municipal Court and its procedure. Jourdan v. Healey, 19 N. Y. Supp. 240; Goff v. Vedder, 12 Civ. Pro. 358.

Final order affirmed, with costs.

Beekman, P. J., and Giegebioh, J., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs.

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

O’Gorman, J.

Plaintiff’s contention that the court below lost jurisdiction by permitting an adjournment after the commencement of the trial is not well taken. Trials in the Municipal Court are conducted the same as in courts of record (Consol. Act, § 1381), and a justice of the Municipal Court now has the power possessed by a justice of a court of record with respect to the adjournment of a trial, excepting that the trial of an action cannot be adjourned for a longer period than eight days (Consol. Act, § 1362), [726]*726and the trial of a summary proceeding cannot be adjourned for a longer period than ten days (Code Civ. Pro., § 2248), unless by consent. In Boller v. Mayor, 40 N. Y. Super. Ct. 537, there was an unauthorized adjournment for three weeks, and in Kiernan v. Reming, 7 Civ. Pro. 311, no answer was interposed, and consequently there was no trial. These cases, therefore, do not uphold appellant’s position. Aberhall v. Roach, 3 E. D. Smith, 345, and the other cases cited by the appellant, are no longer recognized as authorities, owing to the changes which have since taken place in the law governing the Municipal Court and its procedure. Jourdan v. Healey, 19 N. Y. Supp. 240; Goff v. Vedder, 12 Civ. Pro. 358.

Final order affirmed, with costs.

Beekman, P. J., and Giegebioh, J., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Misc. 725, 65 N.Y.S. 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hertz-v-schmidt-nyappterm-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack