Roberts v. Bauer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roberts v. Bauer

7 A.D.2d 991, 184 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9799

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.2d 991 (Roberts v. Bauer) 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

Roberts v. Bauer, 7 A.D.2d 991, 184 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to dismiss appeal referred to Honorable Charles S. Golden, Official Referee, to hear and report as to when a copy of the order appealed from, with notice of entry, was first served on appellant’s attorney. The motion will be held in abeyance, pending receipt of the report of the Official Referee. The decision at Special Term, denying appellant’s motion, provided that the order should be settled on notice. Respondents served a copy of the proposed order with notice of settlement and appellant thereafter served a counter order which did not comply with the decision. Respondents’ proposed order was entered and appellant’s counter order was not signed. The appellant’s time to appeal did not begin to run until a copy of the order with notice of entry was served (see, e.g., Matar v. Morton, 3 A D 2d 407). The issue as to when a copy of the order with notice of entry was first served may only be determined after a hearing. Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Kleinfeld, JJ.

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

Motion to dismiss appeal referred to Honorable Charles S. Golden, Official Referee, to hear and report as to when a copy of the order appealed from, with notice of entry, was first served on appellant’s attorney. The motion will be held in abeyance, pending receipt of the report of the Official Referee. The decision at Special Term, denying appellant’s motion, provided that the order should be settled on notice. Respondents served a copy of the proposed order with notice of settlement and appellant thereafter served a counter order which did not comply with the decision. Respondents’ proposed order was entered and appellant’s counter order was not signed. The appellant’s time to appeal did not begin to run until a copy of the order with notice of entry was served (see, e.g., Matar v. Morton, 3 A D 2d 407). The issue as to when a copy of the order with notice of entry was first served may only be determined after a hearing. Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Kleinfeld, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 991, 184 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-bauer-nyappdiv-1959.