Epstein v. Goldsmith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Epstein v. Goldsmith

165 A.D. 967

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 165 A.D. 967 (Epstein v. Goldsmith) 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

Epstein v. Goldsmith, 165 A.D. 967 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The order appealed from should be modified as follows: First: The complaint should be made more definite and certain; (1) paragraphs 3 and 4, by specifying with more and sufficient particularity when defendant Lewis is claimed to have fraudulently transferred the property therein described; (3) by specifying in similar manner the character of the transfers to and source of title of said Lewis to said property; (3) paragraph 8, by similarly specifying to whom the property and moneys with which the bonds were purchased belonged. Second. The entire 9th paragraph should be stricken out as irrelevant. As so modified the order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellants. ' Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ. Order modified as directed in opinion, and as modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellants. Order to be settled on notice.

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

Per Curiam:

The order appealed from should be modified as follows: First: The complaint should be made more definite and certain; (1) paragraphs 3 and 4, by specifying with more and sufficient particularity when defendant Lewis is claimed to have fraudulently transferred the property therein described; (3) by specifying in similar manner the character of the transfers to and source of title of said Lewis to said property; (3) paragraph 8, by similarly specifying to whom the property and moneys with which the bonds were purchased belonged. Second. The entire 9th paragraph should be stricken out as irrelevant. As so modified the order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellants. ' Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ. Order modified as directed in opinion, and as modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellants. Order to be settled on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 A.D. 967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/epstein-v-goldsmith-nyappdiv-1914.