Miller v. Mestaniz

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Mestaniz

84 N.Y.S. 503

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 6, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 503 (Miller v. Mestaniz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. Mestaniz, 84 N.Y.S. 503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

BLANCHARD, J.

The plaintiff’s motion made at the opening of trial to strike this cause from the calendar on the ground that no notice of trial had been served, no note of issue filed, and no order made placing the cause on the short-cause calendar since the amendment of the complaint under the order of City Court filed May 1, 1903, should have been granted. No order of the court had been made, directing that the case retain its place upon the calendar, or dispensing with the service of a new notice of trial, as provided in section 723, Code Civ. Proc. A defendant cannot in this summary way be deprived of a right to due notice of trial to which he is entitled under the law. Woollett v. The Seaman’s Bank, 36 Misc. Rep. 494, 73 N. Y. Supp. 1005; Ostrander v. Conkey, 20 Hun, 421; Grindal v. De Lano (City Ct. N. Y.) 15 N. Y. Supp. 823.

The judgment, therefore, must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

BLANCHARD, J.

The plaintiff’s motion made at the opening of trial to strike this cause from the calendar on the ground that no notice of trial had been served, no note of issue filed, and no order made placing the cause on the short-cause calendar since the amendment of the complaint under the order of City Court filed May 1, 1903, should have been granted. No order of the court had been made, directing that the case retain its place upon the calendar, or dispensing with the service of a new notice of trial, as provided in section 723, Code Civ. Proc. A defendant cannot in this summary way be deprived of a right to due notice of trial to which he is entitled under the law. Woollett v. The Seaman’s Bank, 36 Misc. Rep. 494, 73 N. Y. Supp. 1005; Ostrander v. Conkey, 20 Hun, 421; Grindal v. De Lano (City Ct. N. Y.) 15 N. Y. Supp. 823.

The judgment, therefore, must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-mestaniz-nyappterm-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack