Thermalectric, Inc. v. Still-Man Manufacturing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thermalectric, Inc. v. Still-Man Manufacturing Corp.

43 A.D.2d 734, 350 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2848

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

DecidedDecember 24, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 43 A.D.2d 734 (Thermalectric, Inc. v. Still-Man Manufacturing Corp.) 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

Thermalectric, Inc. v. Still-Man Manufacturing Corp., 43 A.D.2d 734, 350 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 30, 1973 and made after a hearing, which granted plaintiff’s motion to restore the case to the trial calendar. Order modified by adding thereto a provision that the granting of the motion is on condition that plaintiff agree to restoration of defendant’s action against plaintiff in Bronx County to the Trial Calendar. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. The action was discontinued pursuant to a stipulation entered into by plaintiff’s attorney without its representatives’ knowledge and consent. This court has the power to relieve plaintiff of such- a stipulation if both sides can be restored to substantially their former position {Humphries V. Shapiro, 187 App. Div. 96). In the ease at bar, however, in reliance upon the stipulation, defendant’s attorney had another ease, one by this defendant against plaintiff, marked “settled”. Thus, only if plaintiff’s representatives agree to have defendant’s case reinstated should plaintiff’s action be restored notwithstanding the stipulation of discontinuance. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Gulotta and Christ, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 30, 1973 and made after a hearing, which granted plaintiff’s motion to restore the case to the trial calendar. Order modified by adding thereto a provision that the granting of the motion is on condition that plaintiff agree to restoration of defendant’s action against plaintiff in Bronx County to the Trial Calendar. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. The action was discontinued pursuant to a stipulation entered into by plaintiff’s attorney without its representatives’ knowledge and consent. This court has the power to relieve plaintiff of such- a stipulation if both sides can be restored to substantially their former position {Humphries V. Shapiro, 187 App. Div. 96). In the ease at bar, however, in reliance upon the stipulation, defendant’s attorney had another ease, one by this defendant against plaintiff, marked “settled”. Thus, only if plaintiff’s representatives agree to have defendant’s case reinstated should plaintiff’s action be restored notwithstanding the stipulation of discontinuance. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Gulotta and Christ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 734, 350 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thermalectric-inc-v-still-man-manufacturing-corp-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack