Legal Opinion

Solomon v. Rothenberg

City of New York Municipal Court

Decided January 27, 1933PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtSweedler, J.

The action originally came on for trial November 9, 1932. Towards the end of the trial the plaintiff moved to discontinue the action. The motion was granted. The court, however, imposed costs which were to be paid no later than *278December 5, 1932. To date plaintiff has failed to pay the costs. The defendant seeks to have the complaint dismissed.

It is plaintiff’s contention that the present motion is without basis, since an order of discontinuance brings the action to an end, and thus there is no complaint which can be dismissed. The authorities, however, hold otherwise. (Young v. Bush, 36 How.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Young v. BushNew York Supreme Court · 1868
  2. Hyde v. AndersonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
  3. Anderson v. A. E. Norton, Inc.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1916
  4. Sim v. PindellNew York Supreme Court · 1931

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Hawke v. Servicised Products Corp.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API