Feist v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feist v. Schwartz

29 A.D.2d 638, 288 N.Y.S.2d 434, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4837

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 638 (Feist v. Schwartz) 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

Feist v. Schwartz, 29 A.D.2d 638, 288 N.Y.S.2d 434, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment in an article 78 proceeding directing a Marshal of the City of New York to execute a warrant of eviction and to place the personal property removed from a store on the sidewalk and to deliver the premises to the landlord, dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. It appears that on November 17, 1967, the tenant’s goods were sold upon execution of a money judgment and that the landlord has been in possession of the premises. The questions presented on this appeal are not of vital public importance, which are likely to recur with frequency, so as to impel departure from the general rule of not deciding moot or academic matters. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Capozzoli, Tilzer and McGivern, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment in an article 78 proceeding directing a Marshal of the City of New York to execute a warrant of eviction and to place the personal property removed from a store on the sidewalk and to deliver the premises to the landlord, dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. It appears that on November 17, 1967, the tenant’s goods were sold upon execution of a money judgment and that the landlord has been in possession of the premises. The questions presented on this appeal are not of vital public importance, which are likely to recur with frequency, so as to impel departure from the general rule of not deciding moot or academic matters. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Capozzoli, Tilzer and McGivern, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 638, 288 N.Y.S.2d 434, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feist-v-schwartz-nyappdiv-1968.