From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Szuldiner v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 19, 1963
18 A.D.2d 897 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)

Opinion

February 19, 1963


Order, entered on February 20, 1962, dismissing this action for failure to prosecute, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant, and the motion therefor denied with leave to renew. The motion in behalf of defendant Klein purports to be made by attorneys who have not been properly substituted. They have no standing to so move. ( Felt v. Nichols, 21 Misc. 404.) The affidavit in behalf of defendant City of New York, which purports to be but is not a cross motion (see Civ. Prac. Act, § 117), was not properly served on the plaintiff. Further, it would appear that any future application, if made, should contain a sworn statement from Klein's attorney of record regarding the arrangement alleged to have been made with him in respect of pretrial depositions.

Concur — McNally, J.P., Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.


Summaries of

Szuldiner v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 19, 1963
18 A.D.2d 897 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)
Case details for

Szuldiner v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ABRAM SZULDINER, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Feb 19, 1963

Citations

18 A.D.2d 897 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)
237 N.Y.S.2d 911

Citing Cases

Elite 29 Realty LLC v. Pitt

Before: Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, McGuire and Malone, JJ. The court properly determined that the Peluso…

Palmer v. Palmer

Traditionally, an attorney who is not properly or effectively substituted has no standing to act on behalf of…