Litoff v. Rutel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Litoff v. Rutel

25 A.D.2d 551, 267 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4910

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 551 (Litoff v. Rutel) 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

Litoff v. Rutel, 25 A.D.2d 551, 267 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants appeal, by permission of the Appellate’ Term of the Supreme -Court, from an order of said eourt, entered July 16-, 1965, whieh: (a) reversed an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered March 15, 1965, granting defendants’ motion for leave to serve- a jury demand nunc pro tuno; an’d (b) denied said motion. Order of the Appellate Term reversed, without costs, and order of the Civil Court affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the Civil Court of the City of New York is empowered to grant an application for leave to serve a jury demand mmc pro tunc (CPLR 4102; OCA, § 2102; New York Investors v. Laurelton Homes, 230 App. Div. 712). The amendment to subdivision (-b) of section 1303 of the New York City Civil Court Act (L. 1963, ch. 567) did not remove such power from the Civil Court but merely removed the power of the court to direct a jury trial despite absence of a demand for a jury trial by the parties to the action. In our opinion, under the circumstances here presented, the exercise of the Civil Court's discretion in granting defendants’ motion- was not an abuse of its power.

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants appeal, by permission of the Appellate’ Term of the Supreme -Court, from an order of said eourt, entered July 16-, 1965, whieh: (a) reversed an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered March 15, 1965, granting defendants’ motion for leave to serve- a jury demand nunc pro tuno; an’d (b) denied said motion. Order of the Appellate Term reversed, without costs, and order of the Civil Court affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the Civil Court of the City of New York is empowered to grant an application for leave to serve a jury demand mmc pro tunc (CPLR 4102; OCA, § 2102; New York Investors v. Laurelton Homes, 230 App. Div. 712). The amendment to subdivision (-b) of section 1303 of the New York City Civil Court Act (L. 1963, ch. 567) did not remove such power from the Civil Court but merely removed the power of the court to direct a jury trial despite absence of a demand for a jury trial by the parties to the action. In our opinion, under the circumstances here presented, the exercise of the Civil Court's discretion in granting defendants’ motion- was not an abuse of its power.

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 551, 267 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/litoff-v-rutel-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack