Hilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Hilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co.

135 N.E.2d 31, 1 N.Y.2d 271, 152 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1956 N.Y. LEXIS 878

DecidedMay 24, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 135 N.E.2d 31 (Hilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co., 135 N.E.2d 31, 1 N.Y.2d 271, 152 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1956 N.Y. LEXIS 878 (N.Y. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A motion to serve a supplemental pleading alleging any new and additional cause of action is addressed to the discretion of the court (Civ. Prac. Act, § 245-a). There is no specification by the Appellate Division that its decision was based solely on a question of law as provided by section 603 of the Civil Practice Act. Consequently, we must presume that its decision was based on an exercise of discretion. Thus, there is no decisive question of law for us to review (Mencher v. Chesley, 297 N. Y. 94, 102-103; Long Park v. Trenton-New Brunswick Theatres Co., 299 N. Y. 718, 719-720; Stevenson v. News Syndicate Co., 302 N. Y. 81, 87; see Meenan v. Meenan, 1 N Y 2d 269, decided herewith).

[272]*272The appeal should be dismissed, without costs, unless the appellant applies to the Appellate Division within 30 days for resettlement of the order granting permission to appeal in accordance with the provisions of section 603 of the Civil Practice Act, and unless thereafter such application is granted.

Conway, Ch. J., Desmond, Dye, Fuld, Froessel, Van Voorhis and Burke, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

A motion to serve a supplemental pleading alleging any new and additional cause of action is addressed to the discretion of the court (Civ. Prac. Act, § 245-a). There is no specification by the Appellate Division that its decision was based solely on a question of law as provided by section 603 of the Civil Practice Act. Consequently, we must presume that its decision was based on an exercise of discretion. Thus, there is no decisive question of law for us to review (Mencher v. Chesley, 297 N. Y. 94, 102-103; Long Park v. Trenton-New Brunswick Theatres Co., 299 N. Y. 718, 719-720; Stevenson v. News Syndicate Co., 302 N. Y. 81, 87; see Meenan v. Meenan, 1 N Y 2d 269, decided herewith).

[272]*272The appeal should be dismissed, without costs, unless the appellant applies to the Appellate Division within 30 days for resettlement of the order granting permission to appeal in accordance with the provisions of section 603 of the Civil Practice Act, and unless thereafter such application is granted.

Conway, Ch. J., Desmond, Dye, Fuld, Froessel, Van Voorhis and Burke, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 N.E.2d 31, 1 N.Y.2d 271, 152 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1956 N.Y. LEXIS 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hilton-watch-co-v-benrus-watch-co-ny-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack