Dubowsky v. Goldsmith
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The purpose of the enactment of the law permitting summary application to the court to recover possession of real property was to dbtain speed, promptness and certainty of decisions in cases of this kind. If such had not been the purpose of the law, the action of ejectment would have been sufficient. It has never been understood that in summary proceedings motions for examination of parties before trial were permissible. Such motions, having the necessary effect of delaying the proceedings, are hostile to the very character and object of the remedy provided by the legislature. We think,…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Cox v. J.D. Realty AssociatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- New York University v. FarkasCivil Court of the City of New York · 1983
- Antillean Holding Co. v. LindleyCivil Court of the City of New York · 1973
- 42 West 15th Street Corp. v. FriedmanAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1955
- Hanover Estates, lnc. v. FinkelsteinCity of New York Municipal Court · 1949
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.