Witz v. Cadillac Hotel, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Witz v. Cadillac Hotel, Inc.

25 A.D.2d 717, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4637

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 717 (Witz v. Cadillac Hotel, Inc.) 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

Witz v. Cadillac Hotel, Inc., 25 A.D.2d 717, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4637 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to add ease to March 1966 Term Calendar denied. Memorandum: In plaintiff-respondent’s papers, on this motion to add to the calendar of the term commencing March 28, 1966, there is no reason given for the failure to comply with the time schedule set up by this court as preliminary to placement on the calendar. There is nothing to indicate the date of the judgment appealed from, in fact there is very little in the moving papers except the expressed desire of the plaintiff-respondent to argue the ease, plus a stipulation of the defendant-appellant that the case may be added. The parties may not stipulate away the effect of our rules, which are reasonable and give adequate protection to anyone who wants to proceed diligently to have his appeal argued. Much more should be shown than a mere desire to argue at a certain term.

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

Motion to add ease to March 1966 Term Calendar denied. Memorandum: In plaintiff-respondent’s papers, on this motion to add to the calendar of the term commencing March 28, 1966, there is no reason given for the failure to comply with the time schedule set up by this court as preliminary to placement on the calendar. There is nothing to indicate the date of the judgment appealed from, in fact there is very little in the moving papers except the expressed desire of the plaintiff-respondent to argue the ease, plus a stipulation of the defendant-appellant that the case may be added. The parties may not stipulate away the effect of our rules, which are reasonable and give adequate protection to anyone who wants to proceed diligently to have his appeal argued. Much more should be shown than a mere desire to argue at a certain term.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 717, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/witz-v-cadillac-hotel-inc-nyappdiv-1966.