Legal Opinion

Feldblum Realty Corp. v. City of New York

City of New York Municipal Court

Decided February 1, 1934Published

1Opinion of the CourtEvans, J.

Since the defendant The City of New York does not oppose the motion, the plaintiff will be given leave to discontinue without costs. The motion to serve an amended complaint as to defendant St. George Paving Corporation must also be granted. Under section 723 of the Code of Civil Procedure an amendment of a complaint destroyed the issue, and the Special Term was held without power to allow the cause to retain its place upon the calendar. (Beriman v. Neisner, 177 App. Div. 442.) Section 105 of the Civil Practice Act, as construed by Stehli Silks Corporation v. Kleinberg (200 App. Div. 16) and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wilson v. Oliver Costich Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
  2. Wilson v. Oliver Costich Company, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1931
  3. Stehli Silks Corp. v. KleinbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
  4. Bertman v. NeisnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API