Costello v. Seidenberg

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Costello v. Seidenberg

110 N.Y.S. 926

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 5, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 110 N.Y.S. 926 (Costello v. Seidenberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Costello v. Seidenberg, 110 N.Y.S. 926 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Motion for new trial on ground of newly discovered evidence. Reference to the return on the appeal from the final order herein will show that Owen and Peter Costello endeavored to evade responsibility for goods sold to them, or either of them, counterclaimed by the tenant. These moving papers show that, in an action in the City Court subsequently brought by Seidenberg against Jackson to recover $1,350 agreed to be paid by Jackson for an assignment by Seidenberg of his claim of $1,500 against Peter Costello, he and his brother Owen made affidavits, verified January 24, 1908, stating that Peter Costello was indebted to Seidenberg for goods sold during a period of two years in the sum of $725. Counsel for the landlord presents objections to the motion upon which it is not necessary to pass, as we have concluded to reverse the final order.

Appeal dismissed, without costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

Motion for new trial on ground of newly discovered evidence. Reference to the return on the appeal from the final order herein will show that Owen and Peter Costello endeavored to evade responsibility for goods sold to them, or either of them, counterclaimed by the tenant. These moving papers show that, in an action in the City Court subsequently brought by Seidenberg against Jackson to recover $1,350 agreed to be paid by Jackson for an assignment by Seidenberg of his claim of $1,500 against Peter Costello, he and his brother Owen made affidavits, verified January 24, 1908, stating that Peter Costello was indebted to Seidenberg for goods sold during a period of two years in the sum of $725. Counsel for the landlord presents objections to the motion upon which it is not necessary to pass, as we have concluded to reverse the final order.

Appeal dismissed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 N.Y.S. 926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/costello-v-seidenberg-nyappterm-1908.