Legal Opinion
Austrian v. Red Arrow Bonded Messenger Corp.
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 16, 1959PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtCharles J. Hargett, J.
The defendant, in an action to recover damages for personal injuries and loss of services, moves to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that there is a prior action pending between the same parties for the same relief and that the second action was not commenced until three years following the accident, which occurred on June 15, 1955 (Eules Civ. Prac., rule 107, subds. 3, 5).
The original action was commenced on March 13,1956. It was placed' on the calendar for the September 1956 Term of this court. It was struck from said calendar on October 2, 1957, for plaintiffs’ failure to file…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Conolly v. . HyamsNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Gentilala v. Fay Taxicabs, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1926
- Harris v. HarrisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
- Sweeting v. Staten Island & Midland Railway Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
- Schneck v. S. T. Grand, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1958
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pomerantz v. CaveAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1960