Drucker v. Universal Trimming Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Drucker v. Universal Trimming Co.

284 A.D. 1042, 135 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4509

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D. 1042 (Drucker v. Universal Trimming Co.) 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

Drucker v. Universal Trimming Co., 284 A.D. 1042, 135 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4509 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals unanimously dismissed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents, without prejudice to the rights of the parties after the entry of an order determining the motion. The order appealed from sent only one of the factual questions in the ease to an Official Referee to hear and report. It held all other matters in abeyance. The appellant asks us to consider that the Special Term has indicated an intention to decide the motion ultimately in a way that would constitute error. We cannot assume, however, that the final decision will be such as might be inferred from the memorandum opinion of Special Term. We deem that the appeal is premature, as there has been no final determination on the merits of the issues presented. Present — Peek, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Breitel and Botein, JJ.

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

Appeals unanimously dismissed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents, without prejudice to the rights of the parties after the entry of an order determining the motion. The order appealed from sent only one of the factual questions in the ease to an Official Referee to hear and report. It held all other matters in abeyance. The appellant asks us to consider that the Special Term has indicated an intention to decide the motion ultimately in a way that would constitute error. We cannot assume, however, that the final decision will be such as might be inferred from the memorandum opinion of Special Term. We deem that the appeal is premature, as there has been no final determination on the merits of the issues presented. Present — Peek, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Breitel and Botein, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D. 1042, 135 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drucker-v-universal-trimming-co-nyappdiv-1954.