Podesta v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Podesta v. City of New York

282 A.D. 889, 124 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5338

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

DecidedOctober 19, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 889 (Podesta v. City of New York) 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

Podesta v. City of New York, 282 A.D. 889, 124 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5338 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiffs appeal from an order marking the above-entitled action off the General Calendar of the Supreme Court, Kings County, and directing that it he placed on a Deferred Calendar, not to be transferred therefrom to the Day Reserve Calendar before April 16, 1959. Plaintiffs also appeal from an order denying their motion denominated as one for “reargument and reconsideration”. Orders affirmed, without costs. The motion denominated as one for “ reargument and reconsideration” has been considered as one based upon facts subsequently presented under paragraph (6) of subdivision (bb) of rule 2 of the Kings County Supreme Court Rules. Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur.

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

Plaintiffs appeal from an order marking the above-entitled action off the General Calendar of the Supreme Court, Kings County, and directing that it he placed on a Deferred Calendar, not to be transferred therefrom to the Day Reserve Calendar before April 16, 1959. Plaintiffs also appeal from an order denying their motion denominated as one for “reargument and reconsideration”. Orders affirmed, without costs. The motion denominated as one for “ reargument and reconsideration” has been considered as one based upon facts subsequently presented under paragraph (6) of subdivision (bb) of rule 2 of the Kings County Supreme Court Rules. Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 889, 124 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/podesta-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1953.