Eskop Management Corp. v. Buchbar Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eskop Management Corp. v. Buchbar Holding Corp.

286 A.D. 840, 142 N.Y.S.2d 241, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4289

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

DecidedJune 28, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D. 840 (Eskop Management Corp. v. Buchbar Holding Corp.) 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

Eskop Management Corp. v. Buchbar Holding Corp., 286 A.D. 840, 142 N.Y.S.2d 241, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4289 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Although the retaining wall was not built by the corporate defendant, as was inadvertently stated in the opinion of Special Term, the sequence is accurately stated in the decision and the conclusion reached is altogether correct. The judgment, respecting the extent of lateral support to be given the adjoining property, may be regarded as defined in paragraph 9 of the conclusions of law of the trial court. The injunctive provisions of the judgment, of course, are subject to application for modification on the basis of a showing of change in physical conditions. Concur — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Bastow and Rabin, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Although the retaining wall was not built by the corporate defendant, as was inadvertently stated in the opinion of Special Term, the sequence is accurately stated in the decision and the conclusion reached is altogether correct. The judgment, respecting the extent of lateral support to be given the adjoining property, may be regarded as defined in paragraph 9 of the conclusions of law of the trial court. The injunctive provisions of the judgment, of course, are subject to application for modification on the basis of a showing of change in physical conditions. Concur — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Bastow and Rabin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D. 840, 142 N.Y.S.2d 241, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eskop-management-corp-v-buchbar-holding-corp-nyappdiv-1955.