In re Roe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Roe

81 N.Y.S. 249

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 81 N.Y.S. 249 (In re Roe) 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

In re Roe, 81 N.Y.S. 249 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This proceeding was instituted by the filing of what purports to be a petition by one James Kane, but the petitioner has omitted to sign his petition, and the verification thereof is not in accordance with the requirements of the statute. The papers attached to the petition are apparently designed as specifications, but no reference is made thereto in the petition, and if they are to be treated as specifications they are insufficient for that purpose, by reason of their being improperly numbered and unverified. This proceeding being quasi criminal in its nature, the respondent is entitled to know precisely what charges are made against him, and to have them properly formulated and duly verified.

The proceeding is dismissed by reason of defects appearing upon the face of the papers, with leave to renew upon correcting the imperfections above specified.

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

PER CURIAM.

This proceeding was instituted by the filing of what purports to be a petition by one James Kane, but the petitioner has omitted to sign his petition, and the verification thereof is not in accordance with the requirements of the statute. The papers attached to the petition are apparently designed as specifications, but no reference is made thereto in the petition, and if they are to be treated as specifications they are insufficient for that purpose, by reason of their being improperly numbered and unverified. This proceeding being quasi criminal in its nature, the respondent is entitled to know precisely what charges are made against him, and to have them properly formulated and duly verified.

The proceeding is dismissed by reason of defects appearing upon the face of the papers, with leave to renew upon correcting the imperfections above specified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 N.Y.S. 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-roe-nyappdiv-1903.