Pomerantz v. Sroka

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Pomerantz v. Sroka

52 Misc. 565, 102 N.Y.S. 534, 52 Misc. 567

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 52 Misc. 565 (Pomerantz v. Sroka) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pomerantz v. Sroka, 52 Misc. 565, 102 N.Y.S. 534, 52 Misc. 567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLean, J.

According to the return, issue was joined herein on August 21, 1906; and the canse, twice adjourned, was heard on September 19, 1906. The plaintiff was called; and, after he had testified to his residence, counsel for the defendant moved to transfer the cause to the proper district. This was denied and an exception taken. “As it frequently occurs in the Municipal Court that issue is joined in open court, not in writing or by written pleadings, the proper construction of that section (Mun. Ct. Act, § 25, subd. 4) is that the defendant must demand that the change of the [566]*566place of trial be made upon or before joinder of issue in writing, or upon or before joinder of issue in open court.” Fischer v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. 254, 256. This the defendant did not do, and he also failed to specify the district to which the transfer was requested to be made. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Gildersleeve and Amend, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

MacLean, J.

According to the return, issue was joined herein on August 21, 1906; and the canse, twice adjourned, was heard on September 19, 1906. The plaintiff was called; and, after he had testified to his residence, counsel for the defendant moved to transfer the cause to the proper district. This was denied and an exception taken. “As it frequently occurs in the Municipal Court that issue is joined in open court, not in writing or by written pleadings, the proper construction of that section (Mun. Ct. Act, § 25, subd. 4) is that the defendant must demand that the change of the [566]*566place of trial be made upon or before joinder of issue in writing, or upon or before joinder of issue in open court.” Fischer v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. 254, 256. This the defendant did not do, and he also failed to specify the district to which the transfer was requested to be made. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Gildersleeve and Amend, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 Misc. 565, 102 N.Y.S. 534, 52 Misc. 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pomerantz-v-sroka-nyappterm-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack