O'Brien v. Lasher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Brien v. Lasher

206 A.D. 623

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1923

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 206 A.D. 623 (O'Brien v. Lasher) 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

O'Brien v. Lasher, 206 A.D. 623 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying motion to vacate service of summons affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. We think that under Civil Practice Act, section 236, the plaintiff had a right to appear in person and sign the summons. That section provides that “ Wherever in a statute or rule relating to the conduct of an action a reference is made to an attorney for a party it shall be deemed to include a party prosecuting or defending in person unless otherwise specially prescribed therein or unless that construction is manifestly repugnant to the context.” The interpretation sought to be placed upon Civil Practice Rule 45 by the appellant seems to be inconsistent with section 236. The Civil Practice Rules must conform to the Civil Practice Act. (Laws of 1920, chap. 902, as amd. by Laws of 1921, chap. 370.) * Kelly, P. J., Kelby and Kapper, JJ., concur; Jaycox and Young, JJ., dissent, being of opinion that the summons must be signed by an attorney at law.

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

Order denying motion to vacate service of summons affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. We think that under Civil Practice Act, section 236, the plaintiff had a right to appear in person and sign the summons. That section provides that “ Wherever in a statute or rule relating to the conduct of an action a reference is made to an attorney for a party it shall be deemed to include a party prosecuting or defending in person unless otherwise specially prescribed therein or unless that construction is manifestly repugnant to the context.” The interpretation sought to be placed upon Civil Practice Rule 45 by the appellant seems to be inconsistent with section 236. The Civil Practice Rules must conform to the Civil Practice Act. (Laws of 1920, chap. 902, as amd. by Laws of 1921, chap. 370.) * Kelly, P. J., Kelby and Kapper, JJ., concur; Jaycox and Young, JJ., dissent, being of opinion that the summons must be signed by an attorney at law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D. 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obrien-v-lasher-nyappdiv-1923.