Legal Opinion
Tomczak v. Roetzer
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 17, 1954PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
— Order affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party, with leave to plaintiffs-appellants to renew on proper papers, if so advised. Memorandum: We do not agree with the Special Term that the Supreme Court is without jurisdiction to entertain appellants’ motion to set aside the order of March 5, 1952, dismissing the complaints for failure to prosecute. The inherent power of the Supreme Court to set aside or vacate judgments in furtherance of the ends of justice is unquestioned and *852exists independently of section 108 of the Civil Practice Act. (Hatch, v. Central Nat. Bank, 78 N. Y. 487;…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Ladd v. . StevensonNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Hatch v. . Central National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Sharp v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1860
- People ex rel. Weaver v. Van De CarrAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Fischer v. TushnettAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wasserbauer v. Marine Midland BankNew York Supreme Court · 1977
- Cellino & Barnes, P.C. v. Martin, Lister & Alvarez, PLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- Karpus v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1963