Lapson v. 805 Avenue C Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lapson v. 805 Avenue C Corp.

267 A.D. 919, 47 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5513

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

DecidedMarch 27, 1944

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 267 A.D. 919 (Lapson v. 805 Avenue C Corp.) 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D. 919, 47 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lapson-v-805-avenue-c-corp-nyappdiv-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack