Burke, Kuipers & Mahoney, Inc. v. Dallas Dispatch Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burke, Kuipers & Mahoney, Inc. v. Dallas Dispatch Co.

249 A.D. 812, 293 N.Y.S. 622, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9806

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D. 812 (Burke, Kuipers & Mahoney, Inc. v. Dallas Dispatch Co.) 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

Burke, Kuipers & Mahoney, Inc. v. Dallas Dispatch Co., 249 A.D. 812, 293 N.Y.S. 622, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9806 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, so far as appealed from, unanimously modified by striking out so much of paragraph sixth of the amended answer as alleges “ That thereafter and some time during the year 1935, said E. M. Burke became ill and failed and neglected and was unable to personally supervise, guide and direct and service on plaintiff’s part to be performed; that the plaintiff failed and neglected to substitute anyone of equal skill and ability to perform the work theretofore performed by said E. M. Burke on plaintiff’s behalf,” and by striking out paragraph eighth of said answer, and, as so modified, affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the plaintiff. No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Untermyer 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 striking out so much of paragraph sixth of the amended answer as alleges “ That thereafter and some time during the year 1935, said E. M. Burke became ill and failed and neglected and was unable to personally supervise, guide and direct and service on plaintiff’s part to be performed; that the plaintiff failed and neglected to substitute anyone of equal skill and ability to perform the work theretofore performed by said E. M. Burke on plaintiff’s behalf,” and by striking out paragraph eighth of said answer, and, as so modified, affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the plaintiff. No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Untermyer and Cohn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 812, 293 N.Y.S. 622, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-kuipers-mahoney-inc-v-dallas-dispatch-co-nyappdiv-1937.