Murphy v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murphy v. Kelly

85 N.Y.S. 912, 89 A.D. 619

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 85 N.Y.S. 912 (Murphy v. Kelly) 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

Murphy v. Kelly, 85 N.Y.S. 912, 89 A.D. 619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The respondent avows that this motion was made upon leave granted by the Special Term that denied the motion, with $10 costs. The order of denial further ordered that when all costs and expenses as then taxed in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester, and the costs on the several motions heretofore made, and allowed by the court, are paid, the motion might be renewed. Until the defendant had complied with these conditions, he had no legal standing to renew his motion. The defendant could not accept the benefit of the permission to renew without the burden imposed by the Special Term that first denied the motion. As we cannot countenance such practice, we reverse this order, with $10 costs and disbursements.

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

PER CURIAM.

The respondent avows that this motion was made upon leave granted by the Special Term that denied the motion, with $10 costs. The order of denial further ordered that when all costs and expenses as then taxed in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester, and the costs on the several motions heretofore made, and allowed by the court, are paid, the motion might be renewed. Until the defendant had complied with these conditions, he had no legal standing to renew his motion. The defendant could not accept the benefit of the permission to renew without the burden imposed by the Special Term that first denied the motion. As we cannot countenance such practice, we reverse this order, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 N.Y.S. 912, 89 A.D. 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-kelly-nyappdiv-1903.