Bridgeville Farms, Inc. v. Baldwin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bridgeville Farms, Inc. v. Baldwin

240 A.D. 921

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D. 921 (Bridgeville Farms, Inc. v. Baldwin) 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

Bridgeville Farms, Inc. v. Baldwin, 240 A.D. 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Respondent’s motion to vacate the order of certiorari dated July 21,1933, is denied. The stay therein contained is continued until the final determination. The petitioner’s motion to strike the affidavit of Korobkin from the return and respondent’s motion to strike from the petition and the affidavit the allegations referring to said Korobkin and his failure to appear before the Milk Control Board are granted. Hill, P. J., Rhodes and Heffernan, JJ., concur; Crapser and Bliss, JJ., concur in that portion of the decision striking the affidavit of Korobkin from the return and striking from the petition and the affidavit accompanying the same the allegations referring to said Korobkin and his failure to appear before the Milk Control Board; and dissent from that portion of the decision which denies respondent’s motion to vacate the order of certiorari dated July 21, 1933.

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

Respondent’s motion to vacate the order of certiorari dated July 21,1933, is denied. The stay therein contained is continued until the final determination. The petitioner’s motion to strike the affidavit of Korobkin from the return and respondent’s motion to strike from the petition and the affidavit the allegations referring to said Korobkin and his failure to appear before the Milk Control Board are granted. Hill, P. J., Rhodes and Heffernan, JJ., concur; Crapser and Bliss, JJ., concur in that portion of the decision striking the affidavit of Korobkin from the return and striking from the petition and the affidavit accompanying the same the allegations referring to said Korobkin and his failure to appear before the Milk Control Board; and dissent from that portion of the decision which denies respondent’s motion to vacate the order of certiorari dated July 21, 1933.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D. 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bridgeville-farms-inc-v-baldwin-nyappdiv-1933.