Schmidt v. Massapequa Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schmidt v. Massapequa Co.

240 A.D. 1011

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D. 1011 (Schmidt v. Massapequa Co.) 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

Schmidt v. Massapequa Co., 240 A.D. 1011 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Order in so far as an appeal is taken therefrom reversed on the law and the facts and the parts thereof directing a reference and appointing a referee struck out, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant. On the facts disclosed it does not appear that respondent Levy or respondents Gould and Newman had a valid retaining lien as counsel for the attorney of record for plaintiff, who retained control of the action. They have elected to proceed against plaintiff and his attorney by action; and under those circumstances, with the ultimate rights of the parties a matter of doubt, the court will not lend its summary powers to settling a dispute which may be determined by the more orderly method of trial. Young, Kapper, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents as to respondent Levy on the ground that the filing of the undertaking waived the right of appeal.

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

Order in so far as an appeal is taken therefrom reversed on the law and the facts and the parts thereof directing a reference and appointing a referee struck out, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant. On the facts disclosed it does not appear that respondent Levy or respondents Gould and Newman had a valid retaining lien as counsel for the attorney of record for plaintiff, who retained control of the action. They have elected to proceed against plaintiff and his attorney by action; and under those circumstances, with the ultimate rights of the parties a matter of doubt, the court will not lend its summary powers to settling a dispute which may be determined by the more orderly method of trial. Young, Kapper, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents as to respondent Levy on the ground that the filing of the undertaking waived the right of appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D. 1011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmidt-v-massapequa-co-nyappdiv-1933.