Dailey v. Gidinsky

New York Court of Appeals

Dailey v. Gidinsky

59 N.E.2d 790, 293 N.Y. 889, 1944 N.Y. LEXIS 2305

New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 30, 1944·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The final judgment should be modified by striking therefr'om the direction for payment to the plaintiff receiver of sums to be fixed by the court in which the receivership is pending. Whether such payment shall be made to the plaintiff receiver must be determined by the court which appointed him. (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 804-a, 1547.) In all other respects, the judgments should be affirmed, with costs.

The judgments should be modified in accordance with this opinion and as so modified affirmed, with costs.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thachek, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Per Curiam.

The final judgment should be modified by striking therefr'om the direction for payment to the plaintiff receiver of sums to be fixed by the court in which the receivership is pending. Whether such payment shall be made to the plaintiff receiver must be determined by the court which appointed him. (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 804-a, 1547.) In all other respects, the judgments should be affirmed, with costs.

The judgments should be modified in accordance with this opinion and as so modified affirmed, with costs.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thachek, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

Dailey v. Gidinsky, 59 N.E.2d 790, 293 N.Y. 889, 1944 N.Y. LEXIS 2305 (N.Y. 1944).

Pincite

59 N.E.2d 790 (Dailey v. Gidinsky) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related