Curley v. Harper & Bros.
250 A.D. 849, 296 N.Y.S. 988, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9360
Opinion
Order, so far as appealed from, affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements. [850]*850on the ground that under the unusual circumstances herein it cannot be said that the Special Term improperly exercised its discretion. Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.; O’Malley and Dore, JJ., dissent and vote for reversal on the authority of Singer v. New York Times Co. (74 App. Div. 380); Kuster v. New York Times Co. (79 id. 39).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Curley v. Harper & Bros., 250 A.D. 849, 296 N.Y.S. 988, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9360 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).
250 A.D. 849 (Curley v. Harper & Bros.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Singer v. New York Times Co.
74 A.D. 380 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1902)