Brown v. Rosenbaum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Rosenbaum

259 A.D. 304, 19 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6129

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

DecidedApril 19, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 259 A.D. 304 (Brown v. Rosenbaum) 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. Rosenbaum, 259 A.D. 304, 19 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment should be reversed because no identified shares of stock were allocated to the defendant’s contract of purchase until after the failure of the Harriman National Bank and Trust Company. (Broderick v. Aaron [Rice], 264 N. Y. 368; Broderick v. Adamson [Greif], 270 id. 260.) We have concluded, however, to order a new trial rather than to dismiss the complaint for the reason that this question may not have been sufficiently raised and adequately litigated at the trial. (See Persky v. Bank of America National Association, 261 N. Y. 212.)

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment should be reversed because no identified shares of stock were allocated to the defendant’s contract of purchase until after the failure of the Harriman National Bank and Trust Company. (Broderick v. Aaron [Rice], 264 N. Y. 368; Broderick v. Adamson [Greif], 270 id. 260.) We have concluded, however, to order a new trial rather than to dismiss the complaint for the reason that this question may not have been sufficiently raised and adequately litigated at the trial. (See Persky v. Bank of America National Association, 261 N. Y. 212.)

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 304, 19 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-rosenbaum-nyappdiv-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack