Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

49 Misc. 216

Fizburg v. Ramsey

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · decided 1906-01-15

Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the City Court ■of the city of Hew York, denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to discontinue.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1927

1 state decisions

Relies on Matter of Lasak

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1906-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Blanchard, J.

¶1This is an appeal from an order of the Cüty Court denying a motion by the plaintiff for leave to discontinue. The cause of action alleged in the complaint is substantially the same as that set up in the answer, each party seeking to recover from the other the sum of $1,000 upon two similar promissory notes given by each to the other, to secure the performance of a contract made between them.

¶2*217The learned court below held, and rightly, that no sufficient reason was given in the moving papers for granting tiie motion. The rule laid down by the Court of Appeals in the Matter of Lasak, 131 N. Y. 624, 627, is decisive. It states: “ In ordinary actions it is not always the absolute-right of a plaintiff to discontinue his action. In all cases, where the defendant becomes an actor and is interested in the continuance and trial of the action, as when he sets up-a counterclaim or sets up a claim to property which is in litigation and asks in his answer for affirmative relief in reference thereto, he may resist the discontinuance of the-action, and then it rests in the discretion of the court whether or not the plaintiff shall be permitted to discontinue it.” The-defendant is equally an actor with the plaintiff in the prosecution of the action and the burden is upon tiie plaintiff to-present the facts which would justify the court in granting, the relief he seeks. He presents no facts whatever, but “ believes that it will be for the best interests of the parties hereto-that this action be discontinuedand, in making the motion,, he appears to have proceeded upon the erroneous theory that he had an absolute right to discontinue. The plaintiff is no-more entitled to have this action discontinued upon payment of costs than would be the defendant. The defendant has-been put to trouble and expense in defending the action and in asserting his counterclaim and he is entitled to have his rights determined therein.

¶3The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

¶4Scott and Dowling, JJ„ concur.

¶5Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

/49/misc/216 · .json · Public domain