Coleman v. Dorsen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coleman v. Dorsen

247 A.D. 875

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

DecidedApril 15, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D. 875 (Coleman v. Dorsen) 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

Coleman v. Dorsen, 247 A.D. 875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover $5,878 and interest for breach of an oral contract. The complaint alleges an agreement between plaintiffs and defendants whereby defendants promised plaintiffs that in consideration of services to be rendered by one Simeon Goodelman to defendants in connection with a certain drug store, known as the Theresa Pharmacy, they would pay to plaintiffs the aforesaid sum. The complaint further alleges that pursuant to that agreement said services were rendered by Goodelman, but that defendants refused to pay said sum to plaintiffs. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—-Martin, P. J., McAvoy, O’Malley, Townley and Glennon, JJ.; Martin, P. J., and McAvoy, J., dissent and vote to reverse and dismiss the complaint.

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

Action to recover $5,878 and interest for breach of an oral contract. The complaint alleges an agreement between plaintiffs and defendants whereby defendants promised plaintiffs that in consideration of services to be rendered by one Simeon Goodelman to defendants in connection with a certain drug store, known as the Theresa Pharmacy, they would pay to plaintiffs the aforesaid sum. The complaint further alleges that pursuant to that agreement said services were rendered by Goodelman, but that defendants refused to pay said sum to plaintiffs. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—-Martin, P. J., McAvoy, O’Malley, Townley and Glennon, JJ.; Martin, P. J., and McAvoy, J., dissent and vote to reverse and dismiss the complaint.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D. 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-dorsen-nyappdiv-1936.