Eckerman v. Goldberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eckerman v. Goldberg

281 A.D. 899, 119 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3723

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D. 899 (Eckerman v. Goldberg) 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

Eckerman v. Goldberg, 281 A.D. 899, 119 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3723 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for an alleged fraudulent and deceitful breach of a contract of joint venture. The jury rendered a verdict of $15,000 in favor of plaintiff. The judgment entered on such verdict provides for payment of $993.75 costs, which includes an additional allowance of $750 under section 1513 of the Civil Practice Act. Defendants appeal from the judgment. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. The proof adduced at the trial establishes that the parties, at the time the acts complained of were performed, were stockholders of a corporation and not joint venturers. (Boag v. Thompson, 208 App. Div. 132; Pearlstein v. Baff, 270 App. Div. 1043, amd. 271 App. Div. 834, and affd. 296 N. Y. 881) Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur.

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

Action to recover damages for an alleged fraudulent and deceitful breach of a contract of joint venture. The jury rendered a verdict of $15,000 in favor of plaintiff. The judgment entered on such verdict provides for payment of $993.75 costs, which includes an additional allowance of $750 under section 1513 of the Civil Practice Act. Defendants appeal from the judgment. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. The proof adduced at the trial establishes that the parties, at the time the acts complained of were performed, were stockholders of a corporation and not joint venturers. (Boag v. Thompson, 208 App. Div. 132; Pearlstein v. Baff, 270 App. Div. 1043, amd. 271 App. Div. 834, and affd. 296 N. Y. 881) Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 899, 119 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eckerman-v-goldberg-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack