Bishop v. Bishop

262 A.D. 1023, 31 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7084
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bishop v. Bishop. Read the opinion of the Court — 259 A.D. 917

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

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).

262 A.D. 1023 (Bishop v. Bishop) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.