Deegan v. Resch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deegan v. Resch

22 A.D.2d 701, 254 N.Y.S.2d 512, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2966

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 701 (Deegan v. Resch) 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

Deegan v. Resch, 22 A.D.2d 701, 254 N.Y.S.2d 512, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2966 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for alleged conversion of a bank check and its proceeds, the plaintiff, by permission of this court, appeals from so much of an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, dated February 6, 1964 and resettled by its order of March 20, 1964, as reversed an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, denying defendant’s motion to vacate an order of arrest; granted the motion; and vacated the order of arrest. Appeal from original order of February 6, 1964, dismissed; that order was superseded by the resettled order. Resettled order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs (Burns v. Newman, 274 App. Div. 301, 302; Evyan Perfumes v. Hamilton, 20 Misc 2d 950). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for alleged conversion of a bank check and its proceeds, the plaintiff, by permission of this court, appeals from so much of an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, dated February 6, 1964 and resettled by its order of March 20, 1964, as reversed an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, denying defendant’s motion to vacate an order of arrest; granted the motion; and vacated the order of arrest. Appeal from original order of February 6, 1964, dismissed; that order was superseded by the resettled order. Resettled order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs (Burns v. Newman, 274 App. Div. 301, 302; Evyan Perfumes v. Hamilton, 20 Misc 2d 950). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 701, 254 N.Y.S.2d 512, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deegan-v-resch-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack