Van Thun v. Evergreens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Van Thun v. Evergreens

240 A.D. 737

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

DecidedJune 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D. 737 (Van Thun v. Evergreens) 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

Van Thun v. Evergreens, 240 A.D. 737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. By the order under review this case was struck from the calendar of the jury causes on the ground that the defendant had failed to comply with the provisions of section 426 of the Civil Practice Act by failing to serve its demand for a jury trial within twenty days after the day of service of the notice of trial by the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s notice of trial was served upon the defendant by mail. At the time of the service of the demand by defendant twenty-two days had elapsed since the service of the notice of trial. We are of opinion that, under the provisions of sections 426 and 164 of the Civil Practice Act, the service in behalf of the defendant, of the demand for a jury trial was timely. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Scudder, JJ., concur.

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

Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. By the order under review this case was struck from the calendar of the jury causes on the ground that the defendant had failed to comply with the provisions of section 426 of the Civil Practice Act by failing to serve its demand for a jury trial within twenty days after the day of service of the notice of trial by the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s notice of trial was served upon the defendant by mail. At the time of the service of the demand by defendant twenty-two days had elapsed since the service of the notice of trial. We are of opinion that, under the provisions of sections 426 and 164 of the Civil Practice Act, the service in behalf of the defendant, of the demand for a jury trial was timely. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Scudder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D. 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-thun-v-evergreens-nyappdiv-1933.