Wood v. Kam-Kleber Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wood v. Kam-Kleber Co.

239 A.D. 754

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 239 A.D. 754 (Wood v. Kam-Kleber Co.) 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

Wood v. Kam-Kleber Co., 239 A.D. 754 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals, from a direction, ruling or order of the Buffalo City Court compelling its attorney to retire from further participation in the trial. The ruling was based upon alleged contemptuous conduct of the attorney in refusing to try his client's ease-in the manner suggested- and directed by the court. No order punishing the attorney for contempt was made. Defendant claims that the order appealed from denied it the substantial- right of being represented by counsel, of its choice. While we do not think .the conduct of defendant’s counsel, as shown by the record, was a basis for a finding of- contempt, we hold that the order appealed from is not appealable. Not. every erroneous ruling by a trial court, in the course of- a trial, is the subject of: a separate appeal, and this was such an intermediate ruling, (See Matter of Crenshaw and cases cited in note, 31 A. L. R. 1181, 1185.) All- concur. Order affirmed, without costs of this appeal-, to either party..

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals, from a direction, ruling or order of the Buffalo City Court compelling its attorney to retire from further participation in the trial. The ruling was based upon alleged contemptuous conduct of the attorney in refusing to try his client's ease-in the manner suggested- and directed by the court. No order punishing the attorney for contempt was made. Defendant claims that the order appealed from denied it the substantial- right of being represented by counsel, of its choice. While we do not think .the conduct of defendant’s counsel, as shown by the record, was a basis for a finding of- contempt, we hold that the order appealed from is not appealable. Not. every erroneous ruling by a trial court, in the course of- a trial, is the subject of: a separate appeal, and this was such an intermediate ruling, (See Matter of Crenshaw and cases cited in note, 31 A. L. R. 1181, 1185.) All- concur. Order affirmed, without costs of this appeal-, to either party..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D. 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-kam-kleber-co-nyappdiv-1933.