Richelson v. Fox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Richelson v. Fox

6 A.D.2d 802, 175 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5626

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

DecidedJune 9, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.2d 802 (Richelson v. Fox) 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

Richelson v. Fox, 6 A.D.2d 802, 175 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to dismiss appeal to this court from an order changing the place of trial of Action No. 5 granted, without costs, and appeal dismissed. The order appealed from was entered in Onondaga County on March 24, 1958, and a certified copy thereof was thereafter filed in Queens County. (See Rules Civ. Prac., rules 15, 147.) [803]*803The appeal should be heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Fourth Judicial Department. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 617.) Appellants may, if so advised, apply to the proper court for leave to amend the notice of appeal. The dismissal -.of the appeal to this court shall be without prejudice to such application. (Civ, Prac. Act, § 107; Kalish v. Belmont Motors, 280 App. Div. 824 and eases there cited; People v. Schoff, 266 App. Div. 158.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ.

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

Motion to dismiss appeal to this court from an order changing the place of trial of Action No. 5 granted, without costs, and appeal dismissed. The order appealed from was entered in Onondaga County on March 24, 1958, and a certified copy thereof was thereafter filed in Queens County. (See Rules Civ. Prac., rules 15, 147.) [803]*803The appeal should be heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Fourth Judicial Department. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 617.) Appellants may, if so advised, apply to the proper court for leave to amend the notice of appeal. The dismissal -.of the appeal to this court shall be without prejudice to such application. (Civ, Prac. Act, § 107; Kalish v. Belmont Motors, 280 App. Div. 824 and eases there cited; People v. Schoff, 266 App. Div. 158.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.2d 802, 175 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richelson-v-fox-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack