Thorne v. Brand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thorne v. Brand

249 A.D. 853, 292 N.Y.S. 857, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9997

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D. 853 (Thorne v. Brand) 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

Thorne v. Brand, 249 A.D. 853, 292 N.Y.S. 857, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9997 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

The respondent moved to vacate the service of a summons and complaint upon it. By order dated November 5, 1936, the motion was granted. Plaintiffs moved for a reargument of the motion. Reargument was granted, and on reargument the court adhered to its original determination. From the order entered on this decision on December 3, 1936, no appeal has been taken, nor does the order appear in the record. Upon the entry of that order the original order became ineffective and an appeal from it will not he. The appeal should have been from the order of December third, which by its reference thereto incorporates the order of November fifth. Appeal dismissed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Adel, JJ., concur.

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

The respondent moved to vacate the service of a summons and complaint upon it. By order dated November 5, 1936, the motion was granted. Plaintiffs moved for a reargument of the motion. Reargument was granted, and on reargument the court adhered to its original determination. From the order entered on this decision on December 3, 1936, no appeal has been taken, nor does the order appear in the record. Upon the entry of that order the original order became ineffective and an appeal from it will not he. The appeal should have been from the order of December third, which by its reference thereto incorporates the order of November fifth. Appeal dismissed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Adel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 853, 292 N.Y.S. 857, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thorne-v-brand-nyappdiv-1937.