Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

Resettled Order Appealed From.

8.

At a Special Term, Part II, of the

Supreme Court of the State of New
York, held in and for the County of
New York, at the County Court House,
Foley Square, Borough of Manhattan,
City of New York, on the 20th day

of September, 1935.
Present:
HONORABLE ALFRED FRANKENTHALER,

Justice. [SAME TITLE.]

86

On the subjoined consents, it is

By the Court

ORDERED that the order entered herein on the 27th day of May, 1935, be amended to read as follows:

“At a Special Term, Part I of the

Supreme Court, held in and for the
County of New York, at the County
Courthouse, Pearl and Centre Streets,
in the Borough of Manhattan, City of
New York, on the 27th day of May,

1935.
“Present:
HON. ALFRED FRANKENTHALER,

Justice.

87

[SAME TITLE.] “A motion having been made by and in behalf of the defendants for an order dismissing the complaint for plaintiff's failure to prosecute, and a cross-motion having been made by and in behalf of the plaintiff for an order restoring the above-entitled action to the calendar of this Court

Resettled Order Appealed From.

88

89

for trial, on a day certain, so that the same may be reached for trial and tried in its regular order, and the defendants having waived the stay heretofore granted herein, by taking affirmative steps and proceedings herein, and said motions having duly come on to be heard before me,

“Upon reading and filing the notice of motion dated April 11, 1935, the affidavit of Raymond Parmer, verified April 11, 1935, in support of the motion made by the defendants to dismiss the above-entitled action, and the affidavit of Rosa Sanchez, duly verified April 26th, 1935, and the notice of motion dated April 22, 1935, in opposition to said motion to dismiss, and in support of plaintiff's motion to restore the case to the trial calendar of this Court, and the reply affidavits of Raymond Parmer, verified April 24th, 1935, and April 28th, 1935, and the reply affidavit of Rosa Sanchez, duly verified May 1, 1935, and after hearing Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox, Keating & McGrann, Esqs., attorneys for the defendants, in support of the motion to dismiss this action, and Joseph Gans, appearing in behalf of the plaintiff, in opposition thereto, and after hearing Joseph Gans, appearing in behalf of the plaintiff, in support of the motion to restore the same to the calendar, and Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox, Keating & McGrann, Esqs., attorneys for the defendants, in opposition thereto, and due deliberation having been had thereon,

“Now, on motion of Joseph Gans, appearing in behalf of the plaintiff, it is

“ORDERED that the motion made by the defendants to dismiss the above-entitled action be and

90

Resettled Order Appealed From.

the same is hereby denied in all respects, and 91 it is further

“ORDERED that the motion made in behalf of the plaintiff for an order restoring the aboveentitled action to the calendar of this Court for trial, on a day certain, so that the same may be reached for trial and tried in its regular order, be and the same is hereby granted in all respects, and it is further

“ORDERED that the Calendar Clerk of this Court is hereby directed and required to restore the trial of this action to the day calendar of this 92 Court for the 10th day of June, 1935, and it is further

“ORDERED that the stay heretofore granted herein, staying the plaintiff from proceeding with the trial herein until the costs accrued against the plaintiff have been paid to the defendants, be and the same is hereby vacated and set aside.

[blocks in formation]

We hereby consent, without prejudice, to the entry of the foregoing order.

JOSEPH GANS,

Attorney for Plaintiff.
KIRLIN CAMPBELL HICKOX
KEATING & McGRANN,

Attorneys for Defendant.

Opinions by Judge Frankenthaler.

94

(Law Journal, May 6, 1935.) Sanchez v. W. R. Grace & Co.—Motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution is denied (Dome v. Southern R’y, 152 App. Div. 134).

Sanchez v. W. R. Grace & Co.—Upon reconsideration to dismiss complaint for lack of prosecution is denied (Dome v. Southern R’y, 152 App. Div.). The cross-motion to restore action to the calendar for trial is granted. Settle order.

95

Affidavit of No Other Opinions.

SS.

[ocr errors]

STATE OF NEW YORK, )
COUNTY OF NEW YORK,

RAYMOND PARMER, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is a member of the firm of Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox, Keating & McGrann, the attorneys for the defendants-appellants in this action, and is familiar with all the proceedings heretofore had herein; that no other opinions were rendered by the Court below in deciding the motion herein except the opinions printed hereinabove.

RAYMOND PARMER.

96

Sworn to before me this
32 thday of September, 1935.

JAMES A. CARNEY,

Notary Public, Bronx Co. No. 15.
Certificate filed in Bronx Reg. No. 34-C-36.
Certificate filed in N. Y. Co. No. 310.
Commission expires March 30, 1936.

Stipulation Waiving Certification.

97

Pursuant to Section 170 of the Civil Practice Act, it is hereby stipulated that the papers as hereinbefore printed consist of true and correct copies of the notice of appeal, the order appealed from, and all the papers upon which the Court below acted in making said order appealed from, and the whole thereof, now on file in the office of the Clerk of the County of New York; and certification thereof, pursuant to Section 616 of the Civil Practice Act, is hereby waived.

Dated, New York, September 22, 1935.

98

KIRLIN CAMPBELL Hickox KEATING & MCGRANN,

Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants.

JOSEPH GANS,

Attorney for Plaintiff-Respondent.

99

[4701]

« AnkstesnisTęsti »