Chase Manhattan Bank v. Nissho Pacific Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chase Manhattan Bank v. Nissho Pacific Corp.

21 A.D.2d 966, 251 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3616

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

DecidedJune 4, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.2d 966 (Chase Manhattan Bank v. Nissho Pacific Corp.) 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

Chase Manhattan Bank v. Nissho Pacific Corp., 21 A.D.2d 966, 251 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3616 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion granted only to the extent of amending the designation of the parties to this action so that Chase Manhattan Bank is designated plaintiff-appellant-respondent, The Nissho Pacific Corporation is designated defendant-appellant-respondent and lino ELaiun Kaisha, Ltd. is designated defendant-appellant-respondent. In all other respects the motion is denied, without prejudice, however, to defendant-appellant-respondent lino Kaiun Kaisha, Ltd.’s right to include in its appendix “ such additional parts of the record as are necessary to consider the questions involved.” (CPLR 5528, subd. [to].) Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Eager, Steuer and Staley, JJ.

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

Motion granted only to the extent of amending the designation of the parties to this action so that Chase Manhattan Bank is designated plaintiff-appellant-respondent, The Nissho Pacific Corporation is designated defendant-appellant-respondent and lino ELaiun Kaisha, Ltd. is designated defendant-appellant-respondent. In all other respects the motion is denied, without prejudice, however, to defendant-appellant-respondent lino Kaiun Kaisha, Ltd.’s right to include in its appendix “ such additional parts of the record as are necessary to consider the questions involved.” (CPLR 5528, subd. [to].) Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Eager, Steuer and Staley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 966, 251 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-manhattan-bank-v-nissho-pacific-corp-nyappdiv-1964.