Lodewick v. Mavco Inc.

282 A.D. 681, 122 N.Y.S.2d 419, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4682

This text of 282 A.D. 681 (Lodewick v. Mavco Inc.) 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
Lodewick v. Mavco Inc., 282 A.D. 681, 122 N.Y.S.2d 419, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4682 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Opinion

Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. (See Katz v. Austin, 271 App. Div. 217.) Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Breitel and Bergan, JJ.; Cohn and Callahan, JJ., dissent and vote to modify in the following memorandum: We dissent and vote to modify by allowing plaintiffs to discontinue on payment of full bill of costs. There is no counterclaim interposed here and plaintiffs may discontinue at any time as matter of law upon imposition of appropriate terms. There was no power in the court to require that plaintiffs discontinue upon condition that they would not bring another action for the same cause. (Schintzuis v. Lackawanna Steel Co., 224 N. Y. 226; Hayes v. 25S-79th Realty Corp., 257 App. Div. 1048.) If the discontinuance was sought for the purpose of enabling the plaintiffs to demand a jury trial some provision could have been made in the order to present such a result. [See post, p. 685.]

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

Related

Schintzuis v. . Lackawanna Steel Co.
120 N.E. 137 (New York Court of Appeals, 1918)
Hayes v. 255-79th Realty Corp.
257 A.D. 1048 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
282 A.D. 681, 122 N.Y.S.2d 419, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lodewick-v-mavco-inc-nyappdiv-1953.