Hodge v. 117 Jefferson Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Hodge v. 117 Jefferson Corp.

39 Misc. 2d 92, 239 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2202

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 39 Misc. 2d 92 (Hodge v. 117 Jefferson Corp.) 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

Hodge v. 117 Jefferson Corp., 39 Misc. 2d 92, 239 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinions

Eilperin, J.

The sole ground urged for reversal was the alleged disqualification of the Trial Judge under rule II of the Rules on Conciliation, System A. of the Munitipal Court of the City of New York. This rule, which was in effect when the action came on for trial, provided that a Justice who has made a conciliation effort “ shall not preside at the trial of any case in which he undertakes to bring about a conciliation unless by [93]*93the consent of the parties.” Upon its adoption by the Board of Justices of the Municipal Court and approval of the Appellate Divisions in the First and Second Departments, this rule had “ the force of law ” (N. Y. City Mun. Ct. Code, § 8). In the instant case, the record indicates that the Trial Judge had previously participated in a conciliation effort. However, although defendant’s counsel made timely objection to the qualification of the said Judge to preside at the trial, by proceeding to trial and actively participating therein he must be deemed to have waived the right to assert such objection on appeal from an adverse determination on the merits. The judgment should be affirmed, with $25 costs.

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

Eilperin, J.

The sole ground urged for reversal was the alleged disqualification of the Trial Judge under rule II of the Rules on Conciliation, System A. of the Munitipal Court of the City of New York. This rule, which was in effect when the action came on for trial, provided that a Justice who has made a conciliation effort “ shall not preside at the trial of any case in which he undertakes to bring about a conciliation unless by [93]*93the consent of the parties.” Upon its adoption by the Board of Justices of the Municipal Court and approval of the Appellate Divisions in the First and Second Departments, this rule had “ the force of law ” (N. Y. City Mun. Ct. Code, § 8). In the instant case, the record indicates that the Trial Judge had previously participated in a conciliation effort. However, although defendant’s counsel made timely objection to the qualification of the said Judge to preside at the trial, by proceeding to trial and actively participating therein he must be deemed to have waived the right to assert such objection on appeal from an adverse determination on the merits. The judgment should be affirmed, with $25 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 Misc. 2d 92, 239 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodge-v-117-jefferson-corp-nyappterm-1963.