AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

CRESCENT PURITAN LAUNDRY COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Appellant, v. LEO B. McNAMARA, Respondent, and CASIMIR MEIZENZAHL, Defendant. LEO B. McNAMARA, Respondent,

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.)

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CRESCENT PURITAN LAUNDRY COMPANY, INC. v. McNAMARA
(Mar 25, 1938)