Bilicki v. Bilicki

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bilicki v. Bilicki

257 A.D. 868, 12 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8212

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

DecidedMay 29, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 868 (Bilicki v. Bilicki) 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

Bilicki v. Bilicki, 257 A.D. 868, 12 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8212 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of a receiver of the rents and profits of the premises described in the complaint reversed on the law, without costs, and motion denied, without costs, on condition that appellant within five days from the entry of the order hereon file an undertaking with corporate surety in the sum of $500 to account for rents collected from June 1, 1939, and upon the further condition that the case be tried during the June term. In the event of the appellant’s failure to comply with the foregoing conditions, the order is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion there was no basis for the appointment of a receiver pendente lite on the facts disclosed by this record. Laz'ansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Order granting plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of a receiver of the rents and profits of the premises described in the complaint reversed on the law, without costs, and motion denied, without costs, on condition that appellant within five days from the entry of the order hereon file an undertaking with corporate surety in the sum of $500 to account for rents collected from June 1, 1939, and upon the further condition that the case be tried during the June term. In the event of the appellant’s failure to comply with the foregoing conditions, the order is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion there was no basis for the appointment of a receiver pendente lite on the facts disclosed by this record. Laz'ansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 868, 12 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bilicki-v-bilicki-nyappdiv-1939.