Brown v. Bullock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Bullock

15 A.D.2d 889, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11050

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.2d 889 (Brown v. Bullock) 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

Brown v. Bullock, 15 A.D.2d 889, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11050 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

No opinion. Order, entered on November 27, 1961, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs-appellants, to the extent of restoring the case to the Day Calendar for April 2, 1962, unless on or before March 15, 1962 plaintiffs file with the calendar clerk a consent to discontinue the action with prejudice. In the event plaintiffs file such a consent, a hearing shall be held before Mr. Justice Tilzer, upon the notice and in the manner prescribed in the second and third decretal paragraphs, at a date and place to be fixed by him, as to why the action should not be discontinued with prejudice as to Dividend Shares, Inc. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Bergan, JJ. [32 Misc 2d 111.]

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

No opinion. Order, entered on November 27, 1961, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs-appellants, to the extent of restoring the case to the Day Calendar for April 2, 1962, unless on or before March 15, 1962 plaintiffs file with the calendar clerk a consent to discontinue the action with prejudice. In the event plaintiffs file such a consent, a hearing shall be held before Mr. Justice Tilzer, upon the notice and in the manner prescribed in the second and third decretal paragraphs, at a date and place to be fixed by him, as to why the action should not be discontinued with prejudice as to Dividend Shares, Inc. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Bergan, JJ. [32 Misc 2d 111.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 889, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-bullock-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack