Connolly v. Curry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Connolly v. Curry

268 A.D. 1067

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1945

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D. 1067 (Connolly v. Curry) 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

Connolly v. Curry, 268 A.D. 1067 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action under article 15 of the Real Property Law to compel the determination of a claim to real property, order of the County Court of Nassau County, denying appellant’s motion for a review and a new taxation of costs, reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion granted, without costs. Costs in the action and disbursements only insofar as they relate to the parcels of real property in which the appellant is interested, should be awarded. Close, P. J., Carswell and Lewis, JJ., concur; Hagarty and Adel, JJ., concur for reversal of the order and the granting of the motion, being of the opinion, however, that no costs or disbursements should be awarded. Furthermore, they believe that on this record it may not be said that the appellant has unreasonably defended the action. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1478.) [See 269 App. Div. 667, 671.]

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

—In an action under article 15 of the Real Property Law to compel the determination of a claim to real property, order of the County Court of Nassau County, denying appellant’s motion for a review and a new taxation of costs, reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion granted, without costs. Costs in the action and disbursements only insofar as they relate to the parcels of real property in which the appellant is interested, should be awarded. Close, P. J., Carswell and Lewis, JJ., concur; Hagarty and Adel, JJ., concur for reversal of the order and the granting of the motion, being of the opinion, however, that no costs or disbursements should be awarded. Furthermore, they believe that on this record it may not be said that the appellant has unreasonably defended the action. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1478.) [See 269 App. Div. 667, 671.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D. 1067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connolly-v-curry-nyappdiv-1945.