Armstrong v. Heeg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Armstrong v. Heeg

12 A.D.2d 810, 211 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13117

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 23, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 810 (Armstrong v. Heeg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armstrong v. Heeg, 12 A.D.2d 810, 211 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13117 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, in which the complaint alleges three causes of action: (1) to recover the value of services rendered by plaintiff to the defendants’ testator before his death; (2) to recover for moneys advanced by plaintiff to such testator before his death; and (3) to recover damages for the fraudulent representations made by one of the defendants personally acting on behalf of both of them as executors, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 19, I960, granting defendants’ motion to remove the action to the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, and denying plaintiff’s cross motion, under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, for summary judgment as to the three causes of action pleaded. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, in which the complaint alleges three causes of action: (1) to recover the value of services rendered by plaintiff to the defendants’ testator before his death; (2) to recover for moneys advanced by plaintiff to such testator before his death; and (3) to recover damages for the fraudulent representations made by one of the defendants personally acting on behalf of both of them as executors, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 19, I960, granting defendants’ motion to remove the action to the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, and denying plaintiff’s cross motion, under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, for summary judgment as to the three causes of action pleaded. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 810, 211 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-heeg-nyappdiv-1961.