Rottenberg v. Louis Stajer

28 Misc. 442, 59 N.Y.S. 192
CourtCity of New York Municipal Court
DecidedJuly 15, 1899
StatusPublished

This text of 28 Misc. 442 (Rottenberg v. Louis Stajer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rottenberg v. Louis Stajer, 28 Misc. 442, 59 N.Y.S. 192 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1899).

Opinion

Hascall, J.

The appellants seek to set aside inquests taken by respondent at the Trial Term, and these appeals come before us, from an order made at the Special Term denying the application for such relief.

We find that no abuse of that discretion, which is lodged in the court at Special Term, was made in this case. The decision to vacate an inquest is entirely a discretionary one, and without a clear abuse, will not be disturbed by the General Term. 2 Rumsey’s Pr. 228; Leighton v. Wood, 17 Abb. Pr. 177. Upon the trial no legal or reasonable excuse for postponement was advanced, and the justice there presiding properly declined to [443]*443adjourn the trial because of an (expected) agreement, unsupported by affidavit of any kind. We may also allude to the absence of the affidavit of merits required by the rule, as an additional ground for our decision hereon. Johnson v. Lynch, 15 How. Pr. 199.

Order appealed from affirmed, with costs.

Conlan and Sohuohman, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Leighton v. Wood
17 Abb. Pr. 177 (New York Supreme Court, 1863)
Johnson v. Lynch
15 How. Pr. 199 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1857)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 Misc. 442, 59 N.Y.S. 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rottenberg-v-louis-stajer-nynyccityct-1899.