Schmitt v. W. W. Babcock Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schmitt v. W. W. Babcock Co.

255 A.D. 940, 8 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5914

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D. 940 (Schmitt v. W. W. Babcock 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

Schmitt v. W. W. Babcock Co., 255 A.D. 940, 8 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Order so far as appealed from affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: In February, 1936, defendant notified the plaintiff that its expert on wood had become incapacitated and asked for time to find another expert. The request was granted. Defendant did not again communicate with the plaintiff on the subject. Delay there was in moving the ease for trial but the defendant acquiesced in it and the court so found. No abuse of discretion is indicated and the order denying the motion to dismiss should be affirmed. All concur. (The order denies a motion to dismiss the complaint for laches, in a negligence action.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Order so far as appealed from affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: In February, 1936, defendant notified the plaintiff that its expert on wood had become incapacitated and asked for time to find another expert. The request was granted. Defendant did not again communicate with the plaintiff on the subject. Delay there was in moving the ease for trial but the defendant acquiesced in it and the court so found. No abuse of discretion is indicated and the order denying the motion to dismiss should be affirmed. All concur. (The order denies a motion to dismiss the complaint for laches, in a negligence action.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 940, 8 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmitt-v-w-w-babcock-co-nyappdiv-1938.