People ex rel. O'Brien v. Caldwell Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. O'Brien v. Caldwell Manufacturing Co.

256 A.D. 886, 9 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5239

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 886 (People ex rel. O'Brien v. Caldwell Manufacturing Co.) 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

People ex rel. O'Brien v. Caldwell Manufacturing Co., 256 A.D. 886, 9 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5239 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The order appealed from must be affirmed for two reasons: (1) Leave to renew the motion was a condition precedent. No application for such relief was made. (2) The prior order fully determined the matter here litigated. (Sheehan v. Carvalho, 12 App. Div. 430; Haskell v. Moran, 117 id. 251; De Lacy v. Kelly, 147 id. 37; Civ. Prac. Act, § 1332;, Riggs v. Pursell, 74 N. Y. 370, 378; Matter of Livingston, 34 id. 555, 577; People ex rel. Hartford, L. Ins. Co. v. Fairman, 91 id. 385, 387; Belmont v. Erie R. Co., 52 Barb. 637; Veeder v. Baker, 83 N. Y. 156, 163; United States v. Louisville & Nash. R. R., 236 U. S. 318, 334; Matter of Durr v. Paragon Trading Corp., 270 N. Y. 464, 465; Matter of Steinway, 159 id. 250; People ex rel. Hasbrouck v. Supervisors, 135 id. 522, 535.) All concur. The order denies permission to relator to examine certain records of a corporation.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Taylor and Dowling, JJ. [See, also, 253 App. Div. 870; affd., 278 N. Y. 520.]

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

Order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The order appealed from must be affirmed for two reasons: (1) Leave to renew the motion was a condition precedent. No application for such relief was made. (2) The prior order fully determined the matter here litigated. (Sheehan v. Carvalho, 12 App. Div. 430; Haskell v. Moran, 117 id. 251; De Lacy v. Kelly, 147 id. 37; Civ. Prac. Act, § 1332;, Riggs v. Pursell, 74 N. Y. 370, 378; Matter of Livingston, 34 id. 555, 577; People ex rel. Hartford, L. Ins. Co. v. Fairman, 91 id. 385, 387; Belmont v. Erie R. Co., 52 Barb. 637; Veeder v. Baker, 83 N. Y. 156, 163; United States v. Louisville & Nash. R. R., 236 U. S. 318, 334; Matter of Durr v. Paragon Trading Corp., 270 N. Y. 464, 465; Matter of Steinway, 159 id. 250; People ex rel. Hasbrouck v. Supervisors, 135 id. 522, 535.) All concur. The order denies permission to relator to examine certain records of a corporation.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Taylor and Dowling, JJ. [See, also, 253 App. Div. 870; affd., 278 N. Y. 520.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 886, 9 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-obrien-v-caldwell-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack