Solomon v. Rothenberg

City of New York Municipal Court

Solomon v. Rothenberg

146 Misc. 277, 262 N.Y.S. 843, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 966

CourtCity of New York Municipal Court

DecidedJanuary 27, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 146 Misc. 277 (Solomon v. Rothenberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Solomon v. Rothenberg, 146 Misc. 277, 262 N.Y.S. 843, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 966 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Sweedler, J.

The action originally came on for trial November 9, 1932. Towards the end of the trial the plaintiff moved to discontinue the action. The motion was granted. The court, however, imposed costs which were to be paid no later than [278]*278December 5, 1932. To date plaintiff has failed to pay the costs. The defendant seeks to have the complaint dismissed.

It is plaintiff’s contention that the present motion is without basis, since an order of discontinuance brings the action to an end, and thus there is no complaint which can be dismissed. The authorities, however, hold otherwise. (Young v. Bush, 36 How. Pr. 240.) In Hyde v. Anderson (112 App. Div. 76) the court held that payment of costs is a condition precedent to the discontinuance of an action. Until all the terms of the order heretofore made as a condition to the discontinuance are satisfied, this action remains a pending issue. The plaintiff having failed to comply with the terms of the order, the defendant may move to dismiss complaint for failure to prosecute. (Anderson v. Norton, 158 N. Y. Supp. 152; Sim v. Pindell, 140 Misc. 808.)

Motion to dismiss is denied on condition that the plaintiff pay the costs contained in the previous order within five days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry thereof; otherwise, motion is granted, with ten dollars costs. Settle order on notice.

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

Sweedler, J.

The action originally came on for trial November 9, 1932. Towards the end of the trial the plaintiff moved to discontinue the action. The motion was granted. The court, however, imposed costs which were to be paid no later than [278]*278December 5, 1932. To date plaintiff has failed to pay the costs. The defendant seeks to have the complaint dismissed.

It is plaintiff’s contention that the present motion is without basis, since an order of discontinuance brings the action to an end, and thus there is no complaint which can be dismissed. The authorities, however, hold otherwise. (Young v. Bush, 36 How. Pr. 240.) In Hyde v. Anderson (112 App. Div. 76) the court held that payment of costs is a condition precedent to the discontinuance of an action. Until all the terms of the order heretofore made as a condition to the discontinuance are satisfied, this action remains a pending issue. The plaintiff having failed to comply with the terms of the order, the defendant may move to dismiss complaint for failure to prosecute. (Anderson v. Norton, 158 N. Y. Supp. 152; Sim v. Pindell, 140 Misc. 808.)

Motion to dismiss is denied on condition that the plaintiff pay the costs contained in the previous order within five days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry thereof; otherwise, motion is granted, with ten dollars costs. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 Misc. 277, 262 N.Y.S. 843, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solomon-v-rothenberg-nynyccityct-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack