Case Name: BEUGGER v. RUBINO
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-05-27
Citations: 123 N.Y.S. 377
Docket Number: 
Parties: BEUGGER v. RUBINO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 123
Pages: 377–377

Head Matter:
BEUGGER v. RUBINO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
May 27, 1910.)
Pleading (§ 265 )—Reply to Amended Answer—Order Therefor.
An order directing a reply to new matter in an amended answer should require as a condition that the case retain its place on the calendar as of the present date of issue and be tried when reached without further notice.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 806; Dec. Dig. § 265.*]
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by Johannes A. Beugger against Henry A. Rubino. From an order directing a reply to new matter in an amended answer, plaintiff appeals.
Modified and affirméd.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, SCOTT, CLARKE, and DOWLING, JJ.
Norman B. Becker, for appellant.
Edward W. Hatch, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The order should be modified, by requiring, as a condition of ordering the reply, that the case retain its place on the calendar as of the present date of issue, and be tried when reached without further notice of trial, and, as so modified, the order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the respondent.