Los Angeles Investment Securities Corp. v. Joslyn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Los Angeles Investment Securities Corp. v. Joslyn

258 A.D. 1018, 16 N.Y.S.2d 875, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8659

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D. 1018 (Los Angeles Investment Securities Corp. v. Joslyn) 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

Los Angeles Investment Securities Corp. v. Joslyn, 258 A.D. 1018, 16 N.Y.S.2d 875, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8659 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to resettle earlier decision [ante, p. 762; Id. p. 821; Id. p. 828] granted, by certifying the following question:

“ Did the judgment herein entered in Albany county clerk’s office December 20th, 1935 (158 Misc. 164), the affirmance thereof by this court’s judgment entered in said clerk’s office April 29, 1938 (254 App. Div. 711), the affirmance of this court’s judgment by the Court of Appeals on January 4, 1939 (279 N. Y. 734), and denial by the Court of Appeals on February 28, 1939, of the motion for reargument of the appeal thereto (280 N. Y. 570) preclude the Special Term from granting the order herein entered in Albany county clerk’s office April 12th, 1939? ”

Crapser, Bliss, Heffernan and Foster, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., dissents. Although it is not too clear I will agree that under the decision of the Court of Appeals in connection with the motion to dismiss the appeal herein we should certify a question. [See 282 N. Y. 592.] The question certified was proposed by the appellant, and an answer thereto will not determine the question involved in the litigation. We decided (ante, p. 762) that the Special Term was in error in determining a question of fact, not that it was precluded from considering and acting upon a motion for a new trial. On the argument in this court (ante, p. 762) it was not asserted that the Special Term order was not appealable.

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

Motion to resettle earlier decision [ante, p. 762; Id. p. 821; Id. p. 828] granted, by certifying the following question:

“ Did the judgment herein entered in Albany county clerk’s office December 20th, 1935 (158 Misc. 164), the affirmance thereof by this court’s judgment entered in said clerk’s office April 29, 1938 (254 App. Div. 711), the affirmance of this court’s judgment by the Court of Appeals on January 4, 1939 (279 N. Y. 734), and denial by the Court of Appeals on February 28, 1939, of the motion for reargument of the appeal thereto (280 N. Y. 570) preclude the Special Term from granting the order herein entered in Albany county clerk’s office April 12th, 1939? ”

Crapser, Bliss, Heffernan and Foster, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., dissents. Although it is not too clear I will agree that under the decision of the Court of Appeals in connection with the motion to dismiss the appeal herein we should certify a question. [See 282 N. Y. 592.] The question certified was proposed by the appellant, and an answer thereto will not determine the question involved in the litigation. We decided (ante, p. 762) that the Special Term was in error in determining a question of fact, not that it was precluded from considering and acting upon a motion for a new trial. On the argument in this court (ante, p. 762) it was not asserted that the Special Term order was not appealable.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 1018, 16 N.Y.S.2d 875, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/los-angeles-investment-securities-corp-v-joslyn-nyappdiv-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack