Dimen v. Gale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dimen v. Gale

18 A.D.2d 836, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4525

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 836 (Dimen v. Gale) 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

Dimen v. Gale, 18 A.D.2d 836, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4525 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by one group of joint venturers against another, based upon contract among the parties for the joint purchase, development and disposition. of certain real property in the Town of Oyster Bay, to recover from the defendants their proportion of the loss claimed to have been sustained by the joint venture, the defendants appeal from the [837]*837following two orders made by the Supreme Court, Nassau County, and thereafter entered in Suffolk County: (1) an order dated October 26, 1962 which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint; and (2) an order dated November 1, 1962 which denied their renewed motion for leave to serve an amended answer. Orders affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by one group of joint venturers against another, based upon contract among the parties for the joint purchase, development and disposition. of certain real property in the Town of Oyster Bay, to recover from the defendants their proportion of the loss claimed to have been sustained by the joint venture, the defendants appeal from the [837]*837following two orders made by the Supreme Court, Nassau County, and thereafter entered in Suffolk County: (1) an order dated October 26, 1962 which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint; and (2) an order dated November 1, 1962 which denied their renewed motion for leave to serve an amended answer. Orders affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 836, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dimen-v-gale-nyappdiv-1963.