Lapson v. 805 Avenue C Corp.

267 A.D. 919, 47 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5513
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 27, 1944·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal by plaintiff from an order denying his motion to amend a discontinuance nunc pre [920]*920tune ” so as to provide that the action was settled and discontinued as against defendant 805 Avenue C Corporation only, and that the plaintiff retained the right to continue the action against any other third party responsible to him. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. There was only one defendant in the action at the time it was settled and the stipulation for discontinuance filed with the clerk. Such filing discontinued the action with the same force as if a formal order had been entered. (Rules Civ. Prae. rule 301.) From that time on there was no pending action. While the plaintiff, within the time specified in section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, might have commenced an action against the respondent, or within that time might have brought the respondent into the original action, the attempt to sue it, after the expiration of that time, under the guise of bringing it in as a new defendant in an action which had already been discontinued, was a nullity, so far as any tolling of the statute was concerned. Close, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Lewis and Aldrich, JJ., concur.

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

Lapson v. 805 Avenue C Corp., 267 A.D. 919, 47 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

267 A.D. 919 (Lapson v. 805 Avenue C Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Noble v. O'Leary
165 Misc. 2d 231 (New York Supreme Court, 1995)
Bruck v. Contos
24 Misc. 2d 1093 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)