Zuckerbrod v. Kayzee Foods, Inc.
Opinion of the Court
The defendant moves for an order directing the plaintiff, a nonresident, to file a bond for security of costs.
Plaintiff argues that notwithstanding his nonresidence, the motion should be denied because he was regularly employed in the City of New York. He cites Bote v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co. (61 N. Y. S. 2d 280) in support thereof.
The cited casé is, in the court’s opinion, wholely inapposite. It is readily distinguishable from the case at bar. There, the court was dealing with an application wherein four of the five plaintiffs were State residents (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1522, subd. C.) The court was obliged to deny the motion. Here, there is but one plaintiff who is concededly a nonresident.
The plaintiff can take small comfort in the second ground assigned by the court in the Bote case (supra). There, the court was obliged to consider section 53 of the New York City Court Act, which in the transition to this court effective September, 1962, was repealed (L. 1962, ch. 693, § 196). In its stead, rules. 28 and 38 were adopted, which in essence, provide that the applicable provisions of sections and rules of the Civil Practice Act apply to all motions for posting security for costs made in the Civil Court.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.