Automobile Club Service, Inc. v. Gottlieb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Automobile Club Service, Inc. v. Gottlieb

272 A.D.2d 880

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

DecidedJune 17, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 880 (Automobile Club Service, Inc. v. Gottlieb) 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

Automobile Club Service, Inc. v. Gottlieb, 272 A.D.2d 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as insufficient in law affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Glennon, Dore, Cohn, Peek and Van Voorhis, JJ.; Peck and Van Voorhis, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and grant the motion. Order granting plaintiffs motion for an injunction pendente lite unanimously reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied on the ground that upon the "papers submitted there is insufficient basis for granting the drastic remedy of injunction pendente lite. Present — Glennon, Dore, Cohn, Peek and Van Voorhis, JJ.; Peck and Van Voorhis, JJ., concur in the result on the ground that in their opinion the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute- a cause of action. [See post, p.'962.]

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

Order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as insufficient in law affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Glennon, Dore, Cohn, Peek and Van Voorhis, JJ.; Peck and Van Voorhis, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and grant the motion. Order granting plaintiffs motion for an injunction pendente lite unanimously reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied on the ground that upon the "papers submitted there is insufficient basis for granting the drastic remedy of injunction pendente lite. Present — Glennon, Dore, Cohn, Peek and Van Voorhis, JJ.; Peck and Van Voorhis, JJ., concur in the result on the ground that in their opinion the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute- a cause of action. [See post, p.'962.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/automobile-club-service-inc-v-gottlieb-nyappdiv-1947.