Van Arsdale v. King

New York Supreme Court

Van Arsdale v. King

33 N.Y.S. 858, 94 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 617, 67 N.Y. St. Rep. 611

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 13, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 N.Y.S. 858 (Van Arsdale v. King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Van Arsdale v. King, 33 N.Y.S. 858, 94 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 617, 67 N.Y. St. Rep. 611 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the special term denying a motion to vacate an order made at the Westchester county special term on the 6th day of December, 1890, granting leave to bring this action, and to set aside and vacate all the proceedings subsequent thereto, including the judgment entered in this action.

The great delay in making this motion would be a sufficient justification of its denial. But, aside from the delay, the motion was entirely destitute of merit. At most, there was only irregularity in the original motion for leave to sue. The merits are all with the plaintiff, and no injustice has been wrought. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

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

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the special term denying a motion to vacate an order made at the Westchester county special term on the 6th day of December, 1890, granting leave to bring this action, and to set aside and vacate all the proceedings subsequent thereto, including the judgment entered in this action.

The great delay in making this motion would be a sufficient justification of its denial. But, aside from the delay, the motion was entirely destitute of merit. At most, there was only irregularity in the original motion for leave to sue. The merits are all with the plaintiff, and no injustice has been wrought. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 N.Y.S. 858, 94 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 617, 67 N.Y. St. Rep. 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-arsdale-v-king-nysupct-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack