Schuman v. Hertz Corp.

New York Court of Appeals

Schuman v. Hertz Corp.

215 N.E.2d 683, 17 N.Y.2d 604, 268 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1558

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 24, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 215 N.E.2d 683 (Schuman v. Hertz Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schuman v. Hertz Corp., 215 N.E.2d 683, 17 N.Y.2d 604, 268 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1558 (N.Y. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Bronx County, for further proceedings. The record before us indicates that the dismissal of the original suit was not intended by the Justice presiding to be a dismissal for neglect to prosecute. We call particular attention to the fact that the same Justice who dismissed the original action also denied defendant’s motion to dismiss this complaint on the grounds that the original one had not been dismissed for neglect [606]*606to prosecute. Since this action was timely commenced, it is within the saving provisions of CPLR 205.

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi, Bergan and Keating concur.

Order reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

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

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Bronx County, for further proceedings. The record before us indicates that the dismissal of the original suit was not intended by the Justice presiding to be a dismissal for neglect to prosecute. We call particular attention to the fact that the same Justice who dismissed the original action also denied defendant’s motion to dismiss this complaint on the grounds that the original one had not been dismissed for neglect [606]*606to prosecute. Since this action was timely commenced, it is within the saving provisions of CPLR 205.

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi, Bergan and Keating concur.

Order reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 N.E.2d 683, 17 N.Y.2d 604, 268 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schuman-v-hertz-corp-ny-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack