This ause was marked off the City Court day calendar by consent on April 6, 1907 but the plaintiff’s counsel did not move to have it restored to the day calendar until January, 1907. As the affidavit did not state any reason for the delay, the motion was denied. While such disposition of the motion was warranted, I think, in view of the fact that the absoiute denial of the motion has the effect of depriTing the plaintiff of his right of trial, leave to renew should have been given on additional papers showing reason for the delay in attemptfng to move thl case for trial. The order should therefore be modified, as indicated, without costs- A11 concur-
103 N.Y.S. 1127
HAMILL, Appellant, v. INTERURBAN ST. RY. CO., Respondent.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
April 10, 1907.)
Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term. Action by Arthur Hamill against the Interurban Street Railway Company. From an order denying plaintiff’s motion to restore the cause to the day calendar, he appeals. Modified. John F. Foley (William J. Martin, of counsel), for appellant. Henry A. Robinson (Bayard H. Ames, of counsel), for respondent.
Hamill v. Interurban St. Ry. Co.
103 N.Y.S. 1127
Case Details
103 N.Y.S. 1127
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!