Bishop v. Bishop

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bishop v. Bishop

262 A.D. 1023, 31 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7084

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D. 1023 (Bishop v. Bishop) 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

Bishop v. Bishop, 262 A.D. 1023, 31 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7084 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Action for partition. Order denying plaintiffs’ cross-motion for interlocutory judgment of partition, under sections 1024 and 1025 of the Civil Practice Act, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Order granting motion of the defendants Cecelia A. Bishop, John T. Bishop, James G. Bishop and Marie C. Dorsey for an order dismissing the first and second amended complaints and canceling notices of pendency of action, unless the plaintiffs Edward J. Donohue, Joseph P. Donohue and Anna Donohue Kessel, within the time therein limited, shall serve a second amended complaint and comply with other terms therein specified, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements; such amended complaint to be served and such other terms complied with by the three plaintiffs last mentioned, within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Action for partition. Order denying plaintiffs’ cross-motion for interlocutory judgment of partition, under sections 1024 and 1025 of the Civil Practice Act, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Order granting motion of the defendants Cecelia A. Bishop, John T. Bishop, James G. Bishop and Marie C. Dorsey for an order dismissing the first and second amended complaints and canceling notices of pendency of action, unless the plaintiffs Edward J. Donohue, Joseph P. Donohue and Anna Donohue Kessel, within the time therein limited, shall serve a second amended complaint and comply with other terms therein specified, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements; such amended complaint to be served and such other terms complied with by the three plaintiffs last mentioned, within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D. 1023, 31 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bishop-v-bishop-nyappdiv-1941.