Dandry v. Dandry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dandry v. Dandry

23 A.D.2d 498, 256 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5025

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 498 (Dandry v. Dandry) 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

Dandry v. Dandry, 23 A.D.2d 498, 256 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5025 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for dissolution of a partnership, an accounting and other relief, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 30, 1964, which granted plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of a receiver pendente lite, and which inter alla appointed such receiver. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. In our opinion, under the circumstances here, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to appoint the receiver; an early trial will adequately protect the interests of the parties (S. Z. B. Gorp. v. Buth, 14 A D 2d 678; Glassner v. Kaufman, 19 A D 2d 885). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action for dissolution of a partnership, an accounting and other relief, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 30, 1964, which granted plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of a receiver pendente lite, and which inter alla appointed such receiver. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. In our opinion, under the circumstances here, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to appoint the receiver; an early trial will adequately protect the interests of the parties (S. Z. B. Gorp. v. Buth, 14 A D 2d 678; Glassner v. Kaufman, 19 A D 2d 885). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 498, 256 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dandry-v-dandry-nyappdiv-1965.