Case ID: ad_278/html/0327-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Louis Roman, on Behalf of Himself and All Members of Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers of America, of District Council No. 9 for the Boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx, Similarly Situated, Respondent, v. Louis Caputo, as President, or Martin Rarback, as Secretary-Treasurer of District Council No. 9, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers of America for the Boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx, Appellant.
    First Department,
    May 29, 1951.
    
      
      George Rifkin of counsel (David I. Ashe with him on the brief; Ashe & Rifkin, attorneys), for appellant.
    
      Solomon Surowits of counsel (Surowits & Ruskin, attorneys), for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

There is no compelling reason here presented why there should be a departure from the well-recognized requirement that a note of issue must be filed at least twelve days before the commencement of any term and that a preference should not be granted until an action is properly on the calendar (Rules Civ. Prac., rules 150, 151; Manarrow Realties, Inc., v. Conrad Corp., 222 App. Div. 652; cf. Zimmerman v. Rahmeyer, 230 App. Div. 719). The proper practice for plaintiff to have adopted in the circumstances was to have moved for an injunction pendente lite. In disposing of that injunction, the court could properly have imposed as one of the conditions an early trial on a short note of issue (Roberts v. Schaf, 76 App. Div. 433). The order should be reversed and motion denied, without costs and without prejudice to an application for a temporary injunction.

Glennon, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Shientag and Heffernan, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed and the motion denied, without costs, and without prejudice to an application for a temporary injunction.