From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crescent Puritan Laundry Company, Inc. v. McNamara

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 25, 1938
254 App. Div. 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)

Opinion

March 25, 1938.

Present — Sears, P.J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Taylor, JJ.


Order so far as appealed from affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: We do not find our decision in Gibbs v. Sokol ( 216 App. Div. 260) controlling under the circumstances here shown. However, the motion called for an exercise of discretion and required all circumstances to be taken into consideration. ( Van Devort v. K. H. Evaporating Co., Inc., 252 App. Div. 8.) No absolute rule is to be laid down in this type of motion and we do not find an abuse of discretion in the order now before us. All concur. (The portion of the order appealed from determines the plaintiff in a consolidated action.)


Summaries of

Crescent Puritan Laundry Company, Inc. v. McNamara

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 25, 1938
254 App. Div. 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)
Case details for

Crescent Puritan Laundry Company, Inc. v. McNamara

Case Details

Full title:CRESCENT PURITAN LAUNDRY COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Appellant, v. LEO B…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 25, 1938

Citations

254 App. Div. 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)

Citing Cases

Lehman v. Dictograph Products, Inc.

As so modified, order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the appellant.…

City of Salamanca v. Rocell Constr

( Van Devort v. K. H. Evaporating Co., 252 App. Div. 8, 9); (8) is the cause of action in the complaint of…