Blair v. Holzberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blair v. Holzberg

4 A.D.2d 674, 163 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5262

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

DecidedJune 3, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 674 (Blair v. Holzberg) 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

Blair v. Holzberg, 4 A.D.2d 674, 163 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5262 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover money alleged to be due on a written contract. The appeal is (a) from an order dated May 21, 1956 vacating a judgment insofar as it imposes a condition that appellant file security for the payment of any judgment which may be recovered, (b) from an order dated October 1, 1956 denying appellant’s motion to modify the order of May 21, 1956 and (c) from an order dated June 8, 1956 denying, on appellant’s consent and without prejudice, its motion to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency. Order dated May 21, 1956 insofar as appealed from and order dated October 1, 1956 affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Appeal from order dated June 8, 1956 dismissed, without costs. The order is not appealable. (Belfi v. International Commercial Corp., 277 App. Div. 787; Weinrib v. American Binder Co., 270 App. Div. 914; Kennedy v. Mahoney, 281 App. Div. 831; La Bue V. Tilo Roofing Co., 282 App. Div. 710.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

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

Action to recover money alleged to be due on a written contract. The appeal is (a) from an order dated May 21, 1956 vacating a judgment insofar as it imposes a condition that appellant file security for the payment of any judgment which may be recovered, (b) from an order dated October 1, 1956 denying appellant’s motion to modify the order of May 21, 1956 and (c) from an order dated June 8, 1956 denying, on appellant’s consent and without prejudice, its motion to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency. Order dated May 21, 1956 insofar as appealed from and order dated October 1, 1956 affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Appeal from order dated June 8, 1956 dismissed, without costs. The order is not appealable. (Belfi v. International Commercial Corp., 277 App. Div. 787; Weinrib v. American Binder Co., 270 App. Div. 914; Kennedy v. Mahoney, 281 App. Div. 831; La Bue V. Tilo Roofing Co., 282 App. Div. 710.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 674, 163 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blair-v-holzberg-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack