
    The Crandall & Godley Co., Plaintiff, v. The Eddy Confectionery Co., Defendant.
    (Supreme Court, New York Special Term,
    April, 1902.)
    Practice — Extension of time to answer, in Supreme Court, by a county judge of another judicial department — Code C. P., § 778 — General Rules of Practice No. 24.
    The county judge of a county in the Third Judicial Department may extend ex parte the defendant’s time to answer, in an action in the Supreme Court triable in the First Judicial Department, where the attorney for the applicant resided in said county of the Third Judicial Department.
    Where the extension was for less than twenty days the county judge may ex parte further extend said time.
    The defendant, a corporation located in Rensselaer county, obtained ex parte through its attorney, who also resided in the same county, an extension of time to answer for nineteen days from the Rensselaer County Judge. The defendant again obtained from the same County Judge a second extension of time to answer upon notice to the plaintiff’s attorney, and which motion was not opposed before the County Judge. The plaintiff obtained an order to show cause why the second extension of time to answer should not be set aside and vacated, claiming that the County Judge had no power to grant an order on notice in an action triable in the First Department.
    • Henry W. Sykes, for motion.
    Warren McConihe, opposed.
   Soott, J.

The County Judge of Rensselaer county had power to extend ex parte the defendant’s time to answer, the first extension having, been for less than twenty days (§ 772, Code Civ. Pro., Rule 24). The mere fact that the defendant’s attorney unnecessarily gave notice to plaintiff’s attorney that he proposed to apply for such an order at a particular time and before a particular County Judge did not limit the power of the judge. If the application had been one required to be made to the -court and! upon notice a different rule would prevail. Hun v. Salter, 92 N. Y. 651. Even if the order of the County Judge was unauthorized, the motion to vacate it should not prevail, because the notice of motion does not comply with the requirements of Rule 37, and also because it appears that the answer has been served since the motion was argued, and has been retained by the plaintiff’s attorney. The question suggested by the motion has, therefore, become merely academic. Motion denied, with costs, the answer already served being allowed to stand as the answer in the action.

Motion denied, with costs.  