From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stillman v. Stillman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 1, 1922
204 App. Div. 845 (N.Y. App. Div. 1922)

Opinion

November, 1922.


We consider that the only matter before us for judicial determination is whether Mr. Justice Morschauser had jurisdiction to determine the motion. A notice of motion does not in itself bring the case within the control of any particular justice. Jurisdiction is obtained by a particular justice only when the notice of motion is brought on for hearing, and not by a service of the notice. At the time when the order to show cause was signed by Mr. Justice Morschauser the motion had not been brought on for a hearing at Nyack. Therefore we reach the conclusion that Mr. Justice Morschauser had jurisdiction to entertain and determine the question, and so decide. Order affirmed, without costs. Blackmar, P.J., Rich, Kelly, Manning and Young, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Stillman v. Stillman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 1, 1922
204 App. Div. 845 (N.Y. App. Div. 1922)
Case details for

Stillman v. Stillman

Case Details

Full title:JAMES A. STILLMAN, Appellant, v. ANNE U. STILLMAN and GUY STILLMAN…

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

Date published: Nov 1, 1922

Citations

204 App. Div. 845 (N.Y. App. Div. 1922)

Citing Cases

Cesareo v. Cesareo

One of the prayers of the complaint is "that the legitimacy of the child be determined." Following the…