Brandt v. Blumenthal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brandt v. Blumenthal

232 A.D. 703

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 232 A.D. 703 (Brandt v. Blumenthal) 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

Brandt v. Blumenthal, 232 A.D. 703 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting plaintiff’s motion for a preference reversed upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ton dollars costs. In our opinion the motion papers fail to present facts sufficient to entitle respondent to a preference. Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result, and is of opinion that the Special Term for motions in Kings county should not pass upon applications for the preference of cases on the Trial Term calendar in Nassau county.

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

Order granting plaintiff’s motion for a preference reversed upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ton dollars costs. In our opinion the motion papers fail to present facts sufficient to entitle respondent to a preference. Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result, and is of opinion that the Special Term for motions in Kings county should not pass upon applications for the preference of cases on the Trial Term calendar in Nassau county.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D. 703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandt-v-blumenthal-nyappdiv-1931.