Schwartz v. Aschkenazy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartz v. Aschkenazy

283 A.D. 1087, 131 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6398

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

DecidedJune 14, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D. 1087 (Schwartz v. Aschkenazy) 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

Schwartz v. Aschkenazy, 283 A.D. 1087, 131 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff appeals from an order restoring the above-entitled action to the trial term general calendar of the Supreme Court, Kings County, insofar as said order directs that said action be placed at the foot of said calendar upon the filing of a new note of issue and the payment of a new filing fee. Order modified by striking from the ordering paragraph everything following the word “ restored ” and by adding thereto the words “ to the calendar in its regular position ” and as so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the facts disclosed in this record required that the discretion of the learned Justice at Trial Term be exercised in favor of directing that the action be restored to the calendar in its regular position. Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Beldoek and Murphy, JJ., concur.

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

Plaintiff appeals from an order restoring the above-entitled action to the trial term general calendar of the Supreme Court, Kings County, insofar as said order directs that said action be placed at the foot of said calendar upon the filing of a new note of issue and the payment of a new filing fee. Order modified by striking from the ordering paragraph everything following the word “ restored ” and by adding thereto the words “ to the calendar in its regular position ” and as so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the facts disclosed in this record required that the discretion of the learned Justice at Trial Term be exercised in favor of directing that the action be restored to the calendar in its regular position. Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Beldoek and Murphy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 1087, 131 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-aschkenazy-nyappdiv-1954.