TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Singer v. Garlick

David L. Singer v. Isadore Garlick

Singer v. Garlick, 123 A.D. 282 (1908)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 10, 1908
Judges
McLaughlin
Citations
123 A.D. 282107 N.Y.S. 9721908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46
Headnotes
Practice — stay — costs of prior action unpaid. Where a' complaint is dismissed; with costs to the defendant, another action to recover upon the same cause will be stayed until the costs of-the former action are paid.
Summary
Appeal by the defendant, Isadore Garlick, from an order of the. Supreme Court, made at the Dew York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the'county of .Dew York oír. the 24tli day of October, 1907. ' ' . '•

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — McLaughlin

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

McLaughlin, J.:

This appeal .is from an order, denying a motion to stay proceedings in the action until‘.the costs in a prior action brought, upon the same cause of action were .paid. z .

The plaintiff, on the 14th of'April, 1905, brought an action in the County Coiirt of Kings county. Issue was joined therein- and the .action thereafter came on for.trial, which resulted in a dismissal of' the complaint, with $107*33 costs and disbursements. A copy of the judgment, with notice of entry,, was duly served upon plaintiff’s attorney. Do appeal was taken from the judgment. - Subsequently -the plaintiff brought this action in the Supreme Court — the venue being laid in the county of Dew York —to recover Upon the same cause of action. A motion was thereupon, made to stay the prosecution of this action until the costs of the former action' were paid. The motion was denied-.and the defendant appeals. ■

The fact is uncontradicted that this action is brought to recover upon the same cause of action upon which a recovery was- sought iu - the former action,, in which the plaintiff was unsuccessful, and in . which costs were awarded to the defendant, and that such, costs have not been paid.

It has many times been held that where a plaintiff is unsuccessful *283 in an action, and costs are therein awarded to the defendant, another action to recover upon the same cause of action cannot be maintained until the costs are paid. (Ingrosso v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 105 App. Div. 494 ; Wilner v. Independent Order Ahawas Israel, 122 id. 615 ; Bigelow v. Drummond, 109 id. 132; Muratore v. Pirkl, Id. 146.)

The order appealed from; therefore, must be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with- ten dollars costs.

Patterson, P. J., Ingrai-iam,. Claree and Houghton, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. .

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1908: 11910: 11916: 21924: 11938: 11981: 119082026peak 1916 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lincoln v. New York Cent. & H. R. Railroad121 N.Y.S. 1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1910)
  2. Berger v. Ebling Brewing Co.157 N.Y.S. 1118 (1916)
  3. In re the Estate of Friedman166 Misc. 664 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1938)
  4. Conlon v. National Fireproofing Co.128 A.D. 270 (1908)
  5. Sheehan v. Coffey208 A.D. 240 (1924)
  6. Wetzel v. Barhite93 Misc. 496 (1916)

Most recent

  1. Prudential Oil Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.83 A.D.2d 453 (1981)
  2. In re the Estate of Friedman166 Misc. 664 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1938)
  3. Sheehan v. Coffey208 A.D. 240 (1924)
  4. Wetzel v. Barhite93 Misc. 496 (1916)
  5. Berger v. Ebling Brewing Co.157 N.Y.S. 1118 (1916)
  6. Lincoln v. New York Cent. & H. R. Railroad121 N.Y.S. 1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1910)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Ingrosso v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 105 A.D. 494 (1905) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list