Siefke v. Siefke

New York Supreme Court

Siefke v. Siefke

21 Misc. 407, 47 N.Y.S. 953

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 21 Misc. 407 (Siefke v. Siefke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Siefke v. Siefke, 21 Misc. 407, 47 N.Y.S. 953 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Gildersleeve, J.

The motion is made to strike the cause from, the calendar for the reason that the notice of trial was served for the June term of 1895, whereas the note of issue was not filed until March 21, 1896, some nine months after the commencement of that term. As no note of issue was filed for the term for which the cause was noticed for trial, the notice is ineffectual, and the motion must be granted. See Gowing v. Levy, 17 N. Y. Supp. 771; also Nationalizing Carbonating Co. v. Standard Aerating Co., Law Journal of October 27, 1896.

Motion granted.

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

Gildersleeve, J.

The motion is made to strike the cause from, the calendar for the reason that the notice of trial was served for the June term of 1895, whereas the note of issue was not filed until March 21, 1896, some nine months after the commencement of that term. As no note of issue was filed for the term for which the cause was noticed for trial, the notice is ineffectual, and the motion must be granted. See Gowing v. Levy, 17 N. Y. Supp. 771; also Nationalizing Carbonating Co. v. Standard Aerating Co., Law Journal of October 27, 1896.

Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Misc. 407, 47 N.Y.S. 953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siefke-v-siefke-nysupct-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack