Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

(Download) "Richard F. Lehman v. Dictograph Products" by Supreme Court of New York " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

Richard F. Lehman v. Dictograph Products

📘 Read Now     📥 Download


eBook details

  • Title: Richard F. Lehman v. Dictograph Products
  • Author : Supreme Court of New York
  • Release Date : January 16, 1957
  • Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
  • Pages : * pages
  • Size : 64 KB

Description

On or about March 27, 1957, Dictograph Products, Inc., commenced action in the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough
of Queens, Fourth District, to recover alleged overpayments on account of bonuses from Richard F. Lehman, its former employee.
On or about April 2, 1957 Lehman commenced action against Dictograph Products, Inc. in the Supreme Court, Queens County, to
recover balances of salary and bonuses alleged to be due and unpaid. This appeal is from so much of an order removing the
Municipal Court action to the Supreme Court and consolidating it with the action pending in that court, as provides that Lehman
shall be the plaintiff in the consolidated action with the right to open and close and that Dictograph Products, Inc., shall
be the defendant therein. Order modified by striking therefrom the fourth ordering paragraph and by providing instead that
Dictograph Products, Inc., shall be the plaintiff in the consolidated action with the right to open and close and that Lehman
shall be the defendant therein. As so modified, order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements
to the appellant. There are no special circumstances which warrant denial to appellant, whose action was first commenced,
of the right to open and close. (Brink's Express Co. v. Burns, 230 App. Div. 559; Bril v. Storm, 275 App. Div. 954.) Nolan,
P.J., Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order without modification,
on the ground that the granting of the right to open and close in a consolidated action is discretionary. No abuse of discretion
has been demonstrated on the appeal. (Crescent Puritan Laundry Co. v. McNamara, 254 App. Div. 646.)


Download Books "Richard F. Lehman v. Dictograph Products" PDF ePub Kindle