Morris v. Herman Reich, Inc.

New York Supreme Court

Morris v. Herman Reich, Inc.

17 Misc. 2d 216, 184 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4347

DecidedFebruary 9, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Misc. 2d 216 (Morris v. Herman Reich, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morris v. Herman Reich, Inc., 17 Misc. 2d 216, 184 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4347 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Louis L. Friedman, J.

The defendants’ motion to dismiss this action for lack of prosecution is denied without prejudice to an application in New York County. It appears from the papers before the court and from the oral argument, that a stipulation consenting to transfer this action to New York County was entered into in 1954 and that on November 24, 1954, an order to that effect was signed by a Justice of this court. Plaintiff’s attorney asserts that he has been unable to find either the order on file or the stipulations and that it is because of this circumstance that he has been unable to proceed with the case in New York County and to place it on the calendar there. He claims that the transfer has never actually taken place.

If that be so, then plaintiff has good reason for not having placed the case on the calendar. In any event, the order entered in November, 1954, transferring this action to New York County, deprived this court of any further jurisdiction over said action, and the motion may not be here considered, but should be made in New York County. The rule permitting motions to be heard in an adjoining county from the one in which an action is pending, is not applicable where the action is triable in the First District (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 63).

The motion is accordingly denied, as heretofore stated.

Submit order.

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

Louis L. Friedman, J.

The defendants’ motion to dismiss this action for lack of prosecution is denied without prejudice to an application in New York County. It appears from the papers before the court and from the oral argument, that a stipulation consenting to transfer this action to New York County was entered into in 1954 and that on November 24, 1954, an order to that effect was signed by a Justice of this court. Plaintiff’s attorney asserts that he has been unable to find either the order on file or the stipulations and that it is because of this circumstance that he has been unable to proceed with the case in New York County and to place it on the calendar there. He claims that the transfer has never actually taken place.

If that be so, then plaintiff has good reason for not having placed the case on the calendar. In any event, the order entered in November, 1954, transferring this action to New York County, deprived this court of any further jurisdiction over said action, and the motion may not be here considered, but should be made in New York County. The rule permitting motions to be heard in an adjoining county from the one in which an action is pending, is not applicable where the action is triable in the First District (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 63).

The motion is accordingly denied, as heretofore stated.

Submit order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Misc. 2d 216, 184 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-herman-reich-inc-nysupct-1959.