Steuer v. Luckenbach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steuer v. Luckenbach

257 A.D. 1013, 13 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8914

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

DecidedJune 30, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 1013 (Steuer v. Luckenbach) 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

Steuer v. Luckenbach, 257 A.D. 1013, 13 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant appeals from an order substituting for a deceased defendant the administrator of her estate, amending the title of the action accordingly, directing that all further proceedings be had against the said administrator and that judgment be entered against the administrator, and from the judgment entered pursuant to said order. Order and judgment affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. By an affirmance the same result is reached as would be attained if the provisions of section 478 of the Civil Practice Act were invoked. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell and Taylor, JJ., concur; Adel, J., with whom Hagarty, J., concurs, dissents and votes to reverse and deny the motion, with the following memorandum: Section 478 of the Civil Practice Act provides the proper procedure, which should be followed. Judgment should be entered without having the decedent’s personal representative substituted in the action.

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

Defendant appeals from an order substituting for a deceased defendant the administrator of her estate, amending the title of the action accordingly, directing that all further proceedings be had against the said administrator and that judgment be entered against the administrator, and from the judgment entered pursuant to said order. Order and judgment affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. By an affirmance the same result is reached as would be attained if the provisions of section 478 of the Civil Practice Act were invoked. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell and Taylor, JJ., concur; Adel, J., with whom Hagarty, J., concurs, dissents and votes to reverse and deny the motion, with the following memorandum: Section 478 of the Civil Practice Act provides the proper procedure, which should be followed. Judgment should be entered without having the decedent’s personal representative substituted in the action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 1013, 13 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steuer-v-luckenbach-nyappdiv-1939.