Rosenbaum v. Dale Factors Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenbaum v. Dale Factors Corp.

19 A.D.2d 604, 240 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3578

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

DecidedJune 18, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 604 (Rosenbaum v. Dale Factors Corp.) 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

Rosenbaum v. Dale Factors Corp., 19 A.D.2d 604, 240 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on August 16, 1961, unanimously affirmed, without [605]*605costs. The action, which appears to have hcen commenced before the death of the plaintiff, was not dismissed by said order. The order, however, properly struck the complaint inasmuch as it was not served until after the death of the plaintiff. It was proper also to deny the motion to substitute the administratrix as party plaintiff in that it does not appear that the application for such substitution was properly authorized (see 2 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, §§ 37, 38, 40, pp. 111-112, 115; Bobinson v. Thomas, 123 App. Div. 411) but the order and the affirmance here is without prejudice to a proper application for such substitution. 'Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on August 16, 1961, unanimously affirmed, without [605]*605costs. The action, which appears to have hcen commenced before the death of the plaintiff, was not dismissed by said order. The order, however, properly struck the complaint inasmuch as it was not served until after the death of the plaintiff. It was proper also to deny the motion to substitute the administratrix as party plaintiff in that it does not appear that the application for such substitution was properly authorized (see 2 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, §§ 37, 38, 40, pp. 111-112, 115; Bobinson v. Thomas, 123 App. Div. 411) but the order and the affirmance here is without prejudice to a proper application for such substitution. 'Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 604, 240 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenbaum-v-dale-factors-corp-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack