Gussin v. Grossman
| Decision Date | 03 March 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. L--11027,L--11027 |
| Citation | 168 A.2d 457,66 N.J.Super. 107 |
| Parties | Betty GUSSIN, Plaintiff, v. Eugene GROSSMAN, Defendant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Benjamin L. Bendit, Newark, for plaintiff (Bendit, Weinstock, Cummis & Kroner, Newark, attorneys).
E. Donald Steinbrugge, East Orange, for defendant (John W. Taylor, East Orange, attorney).
This matter comes on before me on defendant's motion for a new trial pursuant to R.R. 4:61--1(a). The plaintiff urges lack of jurisdiction for the reason that the motion was not served within the time limited by R.R. 4:61--2.
The matter was heard before the court and a jury and resulted in the rendition of a verdict for the plaintiff on January 13, 1961. Judgment thereon was entered January 24, 1961. Defendant's motion was served and filed on February 1, 1961.
R.R. 4:61--2 provides in part as follows:
'A motion for a new trial shall be served not later than 10 days after the court's conclusions are made known in non-jury actions or after the entry of the verdict of the jury. * * *'
Under R.R. 1:27B (former R.R. 1:1--9), neither the court nor the parties may enlarge the period for taking any action under this rule. The court is thus without power to exercise its discretion in aid of the defendant. Mastranduono v. Resnick, 28 N.J.Super. 142, 100 A.2d 213, 214 (Law Div.1953). Jurisdiction therefore depends upon the interpretation of the words 'entry of the verdict of the jury.'
It is urged by the plaintiff that the verdict of the jury is entered when the jury returns its verdict and it is received and entered in the minutes. Defendant contends that the time of the receipt of notice of the jury's verdict by the clerk governs.
Under the practice prior to September 15, 1948, applications for a new trial were required to be made within six days following the jury's verdict. Supreme Court Rule 123. Prior to June 7, 1951, R.R. 4:61--2 (formerly Rule 3:59--2) followed Federal Rule 59(b), 28 U.S.C.A., and provided that the ten-day period within which a motion for new trial must be served, commenced with the 'entry of judgment.' Effective June 7, 1951 the present rule was adopted requiring that the motion be served not later than ten days after the entry of the verdict in jury trials or ten days after the court's conclusions are made known in nonjury actions.
The rules make no provision for the Entry of a verdict by the clerk of this court. His duties require him to enter the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baumann v. Marinaro
... ... period and nullify the plain language of R.R. 1:27B(c)." (Now R. 1:3-4(c)). Moich, supra, 82 N.J.Super. at 362, 197 A.2d 690; accord Gussin" v. Grossman, 66 N.J.Super. 107, 168 A.2d 457 (Law Div. 1961): Mastranduono v. Resnick, 28 N.J.Super. 142, 100 A.2d 213 (Law Div. 1953) ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Moich v. Passaic Terminal & Transp. Co.
...to extend the time given by the rule. Mastranduono v. Resnick, 28 N.J.Super. 142, 100 A.2d 213 (Law Div.1953); Gussin v. Grossman, 66 N.J.Super. 107, 168 A.2d 457 (Law Div.1961). Defendants' assertion that the only cases interpreting R.R. 4:61--2 in the light of R.R. 1:27B(c) are at the tri......
-
Pritchett v. State
...docket pursuant to R[ule] 4:47." Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 4 on R. 4:49-1 (2020) (citing Gussin v. Grossman, 66 N.J. Super. 107, 109 (Law. Div. 1961)). Defendant did not file its motion until August 28, 2017. The State argues that "any error was 'invited error'" be......
-
Spedick v. Murphy
...in open court (see R. 1:8-9) and not from the date judgment is entered on the docket pursuant to R. 4:47. See Gussin v. Grossman, 66 N.J.Super. 107, 168 A.2d 457 (Law Div.1961). As the ten-day period is made non-relaxable, even in extenuating circumstances, by R. 1:3-4(c), a late service ca......