Bissell v. Finlay Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bissell v. Finlay Realty Co.

249 A.D. 855, 293 N.Y.S. 47, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10008

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D. 855 (Bissell v. Finlay Realty Co.) 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

Bissell v. Finlay Realty Co., 249 A.D. 855, 293 N.Y.S. 47, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10008 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to declare void and set aside a sale of stock and for damages caused by the refusal of defendant to permit plaintiff to sell his equity in such stock, the defendant interposed an answer containing a counterclaim. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and for judgment on its counterclaim pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The motion was granted by order dated January 31, 1936. By order bearing date March 7,1936, reargument was granted and upon such reargument the court adhered to the former determination. A judgment based upon the order dated January 31, 1936, was entered. The plaintiff [856]*856appeals from the order of January 31, 1936, the judgment entered thereon, and the order of March 7, 1936. Order of March 7, 1936, unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Appeal from order of January 31, 1936, and judgment entered thereon, dismissed, without costs. No opinion. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ.

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

In an action to declare void and set aside a sale of stock and for damages caused by the refusal of defendant to permit plaintiff to sell his equity in such stock, the defendant interposed an answer containing a counterclaim. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and for judgment on its counterclaim pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The motion was granted by order dated January 31, 1936. By order bearing date March 7,1936, reargument was granted and upon such reargument the court adhered to the former determination. A judgment based upon the order dated January 31, 1936, was entered. The plaintiff [856]*856appeals from the order of January 31, 1936, the judgment entered thereon, and the order of March 7, 1936. Order of March 7, 1936, unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Appeal from order of January 31, 1936, and judgment entered thereon, dismissed, without costs. No opinion. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 855, 293 N.Y.S. 47, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bissell-v-finlay-realty-co-nyappdiv-1937.