Moskowitz v. Moskowitz

269 A.D. 747, 54 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3609
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Moskowitz v. Moskowitz. Read the opinion of the Court — 269 A.D. 710

Opinion

Order granting defendant’s motion to vacate clerk’s entry of abandonment of this action, restoring the case to the calendar for trial, and granting other relief, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In order to sustain this order it is not necessaiy to decide whether or not the clerk’s entry had the effect of an order or judgment in resp.ect of terminating the action. No matter what effect the entry had, the court, in the exercise of discretion, had the power to relieve the defendant from the effect of that entry and to restore the case to the calendar. (Ladd v. Stevenson et al., 112 N. Y. 325; Hatch et al. v. Central [748]*748National Bank, 78 N. Y. 487; Klein v. Fairberg, 243 App. Div. 609.) Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Lewis, JJ., concur.

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

Moskowitz v. Moskowitz, 269 A.D. 747, 54 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

269 A.D. 747 (Moskowitz v. Moskowitz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hatch v. . Central National Bank
78 N.Y. 487 (New York Court of Appeals, 1879)
Ladd v. . Stevenson
19 N.E. 842 (New York Court of Appeals, 1889)
Klein v. Fairberg
243 A.D. 609 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1935)