Blumenkranz v. Na-Jua-Ev Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blumenkranz v. Na-Jua-Ev Holding Corp.

240 A.D. 984

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D. 984 (Blumenkranz v. Na-Jua-Ev Holding Corp.) 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

Blumenkranz v. Na-Jua-Ev Holding Corp., 240 A.D. 984 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, in so far as appealed from, surcharging the receiver in the sum of $1,821.65, modified by reducing the amount of the surcharge to seventeen dollars, and as so modified unanimously affirmed, without costs to either party. In our opinion the evidence shows that all of the items of disbursements were actually made, were necessary, and, with the exception of the plumber’s bill of thirty-five dollars, are reasonable in amount. The surcharge of seventeen dollars represents the difference between [985]*985this thirty-five dollar item, credited in the receiver’s account, and the reasonable value of the work, which is fixed at eighteen dollars. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ.

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

Order, in so far as appealed from, surcharging the receiver in the sum of $1,821.65, modified by reducing the amount of the surcharge to seventeen dollars, and as so modified unanimously affirmed, without costs to either party. In our opinion the evidence shows that all of the items of disbursements were actually made, were necessary, and, with the exception of the plumber’s bill of thirty-five dollars, are reasonable in amount. The surcharge of seventeen dollars represents the difference between [985]*985this thirty-five dollar item, credited in the receiver’s account, and the reasonable value of the work, which is fixed at eighteen dollars. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D. 984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blumenkranz-v-na-jua-ev-holding-corp-nyappdiv-1933.