From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Langrick v. Rowe

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 8, 1943
52 N.E.2d 964 (N.Y. 1943)

Opinion

Argued October 14, 1943

Decided December 8, 1943

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, EDER, J.

Jay Leo Rothschild and Samuel F. Frank for appellant.

Milton W. Levy and Joseph T. Arenson for respondents.


Order affirmed, without costs, upon the ground that when the appellant applied at Special Term for an order authorizing her to withdraw the fund deposited with the City Treasurer pursuant to the terms of the partition judgment in the above captioned action, she failed to give notice of such application, as required by rule 32 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to the attorneys for all parties who had appeared therein or filed notice of claim to such fund. We do not pass upon the merits of the controversy. No opinion.

Concur: LEHMAN, Ch. J., LOUGHRAN, RIPPEY, LEWIS, CONWAY, DESMOND and THACHER, JJ.


Summaries of

Langrick v. Rowe

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 8, 1943
52 N.E.2d 964 (N.Y. 1943)
Case details for

Langrick v. Rowe

Case Details

Full title:PHEBE LANGRICK et al., Plaintiffs, and MARY J.L. FRANK…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 8, 1943

Citations

52 N.E.2d 964 (N.Y. 1943)
52 N.E.2d 964

Citing Cases

Silverstein v. Hobbyland

Here neither the plaintiff nor his attorney provided notice that counsel for the plaintiff was no longer…

Cann v. Cann

but must deal with the attorney who has appeared for the defendant (Chadwick v. Snediker, 26 How. Prac. 60).…