thirty-day clause in New York

2025Summary judgment is a drastic remedy which a court should employ only when there is no doubt as to the absence of triable issues of fact ( Andre v Pomeroy , 35 NY2d 361 [1974]).

1954The alleged invalidity of the thirty-day requirement imposed by this local law is one of the grounds urged for reversal, but this point was adjudged adversely to petitioners in Gorman v. City of New York, ( 304 N. Y. 865 , appeal dismissed 345 U. S. 962 ).

1954The alleged invalidity of the thirty-day requirement imposed by this local law is one of the grounds urged for reversal, but this point was adjudged adversely to petitioners in Gorman v. City of New York, ( 304 N. Y. 865 , appeal dismissed 345 U. S. 962 ).

1952There must be some finality in disposition of cases before the commission (cf. Matter of Cupo v. McGoldrick, 278 App. Div. 108 ) and the thirty-day rule for due protest is a salutary one. (3) The petitioner contends that it justifiably waited for the decision on its later application to restore the rent before serving, the protest on the earlier ruling, and that if its request were granted, the protest would have been unnecessary.

1934Thus, in Freeman v. Engel ( 185 App. Div. 218 ) (based on the former thirty-day requirement) the property was retaken on September seventh, and sold October eleventh.

1888So, also, in the- case of Haddow v. Lundy ( 59 N. Y., 320 ) the court expressly held that a right of action existed at the time of the filing of the original bill, and that in consequence of subsequent circumstances a different kind of relief became applicable, and that such relief might be obtained in the original action, the general rule being that, if the original bill is sustainable and the supplemental bill only enlarges the extent and changes the kind of relief, such supplemental bill may be sustained.

1884That case was decided upon another point, but the views .expressed in the opinion on the point directly involved in the present case are in conformity with the authorities (Express Co. v. Caldwell, 21 Wall. 264 ; Weir v. Adams Exp.

1884But it is of no consequence what the form of action is, since in Smith v. Dinsmore ( 9 Daly 188 ) we held that in an action for conversion the thirty day clause in the shipping receipt (which clause was identical with the one now before us) was available to the carrier; that the presentation of claim for loss within the time specified was a condition precedent to recovery, and unless complied with the action against the carrier could not be sustained.