Szuldiner v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Szuldiner v. City of New York

18 A.D.2d 897, 237 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4358

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 18 A.D.2d 897 (Szuldiner v. City of New York) 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

Szuldiner v. City of New York, 18 A.D.2d 897, 237 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on February 20, 1962, dismissing this action for failure to prosecute, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant, and the motion therefor denied with leave to renew. The motion in behalf of defendant Klein purports to be made by attorneys who have not been properly substituted. They have no standing to so move. (Felt v. Nichols, 21 Misc. 404.) The affidavit in behalf of defendant City of New York, which purports to be but is not a cross motion (see Civ. Prac. Act, § 117), was not properly served on the plaintiff. Further, it would appear that any future application, if made, should contain a sworn statement from Klein’s attorney of record regarding the arrangement alleged to have been made with him in respect of pretrial depositions. Concur — McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on February 20, 1962, dismissing this action for failure to prosecute, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant, and the motion therefor denied with leave to renew. The motion in behalf of defendant Klein purports to be made by attorneys who have not been properly substituted. They have no standing to so move. (Felt v. Nichols, 21 Misc. 404.) The affidavit in behalf of defendant City of New York, which purports to be but is not a cross motion (see Civ. Prac. Act, § 117), was not properly served on the plaintiff. Further, it would appear that any future application, if made, should contain a sworn statement from Klein’s attorney of record regarding the arrangement alleged to have been made with him in respect of pretrial depositions. Concur — McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 897, 237 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/szuldiner-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack