Revutsky v. Fuller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Revutsky v. Fuller

242 A.D. 838

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 1934·Published

Opinion

Motion to dismiss appeals denied, with leave to respondent to renew upon the argument of the appeals. Section 282 of the Civil Practice Act was repealed in 1932 (Laws of 1932, chap. 224) and cannot, therefore, be invoked to support the motion. We think that the question as to the effect of such repeal should be considered by this court after full argument. Prior to section 282, the rule seems to have been the same as that provided in the statute. (Keepers v. Hartley Company, 150 App. Div. 252.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Scudder, Tompkins and Davis, JJ.

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

Motion to dismiss appeals denied, with leave to respondent to renew upon the argument of the appeals. Section 282 of the Civil Practice Act was repealed in 1932 (Laws of 1932, chap. 224) and cannot, therefore, be invoked to support the motion. We think that the question as to the effect of such repeal should be considered by this court after full argument. Prior to section 282, the rule seems to have been the same as that provided in the statute. (Keepers v. Hartley Company, 150 App. Div. 252.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Scudder, Tompkins and Davis, JJ.

Revutsky v. Fuller, 242 A.D. 838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

242 A.D. 838 (Revutsky v. Fuller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related