Piscopo v. Thirty Maple Parkway Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Piscopo v. Thirty Maple Parkway Realty Co.

259 A.D. 1051, 21 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7927

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 24, 1940·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal from an order denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate a judgment for costs entered in an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant Pichini and certain other individuals. Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Passing the question whether the court had the power to dismiss the complaint as to the defendant Pichini on the trial of the framed issues, the award of costs on such a dismissal rested in discretion. The action was an equitable action. The order entered in lieu of a decision dismissing the complaint awarded no costs; hence there was no authority for the taxation of costs or the entry of a judgment therefor. (Canavan v. Emze Cosmetic Shop, Inc., 256 App. Div. 1093; Sagona v. Montalbano, 228 id. 857.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate a judgment for costs entered in an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant Pichini and certain other individuals. Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Passing the question whether the court had the power to dismiss the complaint as to the defendant Pichini on the trial of the framed issues, the award of costs on such a dismissal rested in discretion. The action was an equitable action. The order entered in lieu of a decision dismissing the complaint awarded no costs; hence there was no authority for the taxation of costs or the entry of a judgment therefor. (Canavan v. Emze Cosmetic Shop, Inc., 256 App. Div. 1093; Sagona v. Montalbano, 228 id. 857.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Piscopo v. Thirty Maple Parkway Realty Co., 259 A.D. 1051, 21 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7927 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

259 A.D. 1051 (Piscopo v. Thirty Maple Parkway Realty Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related