Case ID: misc_142/html/0733-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. Callahan, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Community State Corporation, Appellant, v. Morris Wishnetzky Co., Inc., and Morris Wishnetzky, Respondents.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    February 17, 1932.
    
      Livingston & Livingston [Joshua S. Shapiro of counsel], for the appellant.
    
      Harry Sacher, for the respondents.
   Per Curiam.

Order granting defendants’ motion for a jury trial affirmed, with ten dollars costs.

Appeal from order denying motion for reargument dismissed.

Levy and Untermyer, JJ., concur.

Callahan, J.

(dissenting). I dissent. No circumstance appears herein justifying the exercise of the discretionary power of the court below to order a jury trial. The defendants waited six months after the time within which they were required to file a demand for a jury and then moved the court to grant a jury trial. My view of section 118 of the Municipal Court Code is that the discretionary power vested in the court should not be used to relieve one of the litigants of oversight but only in instances where the court from a consideration of the issues involved believes that the interests of justice require submission to a jury.