Latzke v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Latzke v. Williams

252 A.D. 288, 299 N.Y.S. 176, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5640

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 252 A.D. 288 (Latzke v. Williams) 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

Latzke v. Williams, 252 A.D. 288, 299 N.Y.S. 176, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5640 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Although the court had power to impose reasonable terms as a condition of allowing a discontinuance of the action by the plaintiffs, it had no power summarily to direct a discontinuance on account of the failure of the plaintiffs to comply with the terms imposed.

The order dated April 5, 1937, so far as appealed from, should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the appellants, and the defendants’ motion denied as to items a, b and c in the notice of appeal.

The order dated March 2, 1937, should be modified by providing in subdivision (3) thereof that the plaintiffs shall stipulate not to assert their claims except by defense or counterclaim and by providing in subdivision (4) thereof for only two bills of costs. As so modified said order is affirmed, without costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.

Order entered on or about March 2, 1937, unanimously modified by providing in subdivision (3) thereof that the plaintiffs shall stipulate not to assert their claims except by defense or counterclaim and by providing in subdivision (4) thereof for only two bills of costs, and as so modified affirmed, without costs; order entered on or about April 5, 1937, in so far as appealed from, unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the appellants, and defendants’ motion denied as to items a, b and c of the notice of appeal. Settle orders on notice.

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

Per Curiam.

Although the court had power to impose reasonable terms as a condition of allowing a discontinuance of the action by the plaintiffs, it had no power summarily to direct a discontinuance on account of the failure of the plaintiffs to comply with the terms imposed.

The order dated April 5, 1937, so far as appealed from, should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the appellants, and the defendants’ motion denied as to items a, b and c in the notice of appeal.

The order dated March 2, 1937, should be modified by providing in subdivision (3) thereof that the plaintiffs shall stipulate not to assert their claims except by defense or counterclaim and by providing in subdivision (4) thereof for only two bills of costs. As so modified said order is affirmed, without costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.

Order entered on or about March 2, 1937, unanimously modified by providing in subdivision (3) thereof that the plaintiffs shall stipulate not to assert their claims except by defense or counterclaim and by providing in subdivision (4) thereof for only two bills of costs, and as so modified affirmed, without costs; order entered on or about April 5, 1937, in so far as appealed from, unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the appellants, and defendants’ motion denied as to items a, b and c of the notice of appeal. Settle orders on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D. 288, 299 N.Y.S. 176, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latzke-v-williams-nyappdiv-1937.