Burgess v. Donaldson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burgess v. Donaldson

250 A.D. 757, 295 N.Y.S. 768, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8845

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D. 757 (Burgess v. Donaldson) 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

Burgess v. Donaldson, 250 A.D. 757, 295 N.Y.S. 768, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8845 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, so far as appealed from, unanimously modified by granting motion to the extent of striking from item “ 6 ” of the notice of examination the words “ breached the aforesaid contract in that he unlawfully, without justification and against the protestations of the defendant has;” from item “ 9 ” the words “ unlawfully and without justification, in fraud of the assignment of 40 per cent of plaintiff’s one-third right, title and interest in and to the property, assets and rights of the Dymaxion Project ’ to the defendant above referred to, has;” and from item “ 12 ” the words “ in violation of his contract with defendant’s company, * * * has repeatedly and maliciously,” and as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the appellant. Ho opinion. The date for the examination to proceed to be fixed in the order. Settle order on notice. Present — 'Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.

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

Order, so far as appealed from, unanimously modified by granting motion to the extent of striking from item “ 6 ” of the notice of examination the words “ breached the aforesaid contract in that he unlawfully, without justification and against the protestations of the defendant has;” from item “ 9 ” the words “ unlawfully and without justification, in fraud of the assignment of 40 per cent of plaintiff’s one-third right, title and interest in and to the property, assets and rights of the Dymaxion Project ’ to the defendant above referred to, has;” and from item “ 12 ” the words “ in violation of his contract with defendant’s company, * * * has repeatedly and maliciously,” and as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the appellant. Ho opinion. The date for the examination to proceed to be fixed in the order. Settle order on notice. Present — 'Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D. 757, 295 N.Y.S. 768, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgess-v-donaldson-nyappdiv-1937.