Co-Ordinating Corp. v.Mengel Co.
152 Misc. 272, 273 N.Y.S. 210, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1462
Opinions
As there was no issue of fact presented on. the motion it was error to appoint a referee. (Slutzkin v. Gerhard & Hey, Inc., 195 App. Div. 559; Buchholtz v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 59 id. 566.)
Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and matter remitted to the court below for decision on the papers.
Callahan and Frankenthaler, JJ., concur; Shientag, J., dissents in part in memorandum.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Co-Ordinating Corp. v.Mengel Co., 152 Misc. 272, 273 N.Y.S. 210, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).
152 Misc. 272 (Co-Ordinating Corp. v.Mengel Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Buchholtz v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.
59 A.D. 566 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)
Slutzkin v. Gerhard & Hey, Inc.
195 A.D. 559 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1921)
Shillman v. Toulson
211 A.D. 336 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1925)