Vaccaro v. Parravacino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vaccaro v. Parravacino

247 A.D. 772

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D. 772 (Vaccaro v. Parravacino) 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

Vaccaro v. Parravacino, 247 A.D. 772 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, as resettled, so far as it denies motion of the defendant-appellant to extend her time to answer the amended complaint until ten days after plaintiff shall have complied with the order of this court entered December 6, 1935 [246 App. Div. 693], which reversed an order denying said defendant’s motion to require plaintiff to give security for costs and granted said motion, or until ten days after said order denying extension of time to answer shall be vacated or reversed. Also appeal from order denying said defendant’s motion to resettle order of January 7, 1936, and granting leave to plaintiff to prosecute action as a poor person. Orders, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to the defendant-appellant to answer the amended complaint within five days after service of order with notice of entry, upon payment of said costs. No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., McAvoy, O’Malley, Townley and Glennon, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, as resettled, so far as it denies motion of the defendant-appellant to extend her time to answer the amended complaint until ten days after plaintiff shall have complied with the order of this court entered December 6, 1935 [246 App. Div. 693], which reversed an order denying said defendant’s motion to require plaintiff to give security for costs and granted said motion, or until ten days after said order denying extension of time to answer shall be vacated or reversed. Also appeal from order denying said defendant’s motion to resettle order of January 7, 1936, and granting leave to plaintiff to prosecute action as a poor person. Orders, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to the defendant-appellant to answer the amended complaint within five days after service of order with notice of entry, upon payment of said costs. No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., McAvoy, O’Malley, Townley and Glennon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D. 772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaccaro-v-parravacino-nyappdiv-1936.