Forbes v. Theodore L. Rubsamen & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Forbes v. Theodore L. Rubsamen & Co.

2 A.D.2d 997, 158 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3369

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 997 (Forbes v. Theodore L. Rubsamen & 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

Forbes v. Theodore L. Rubsamen & Co., 2 A.D.2d 997, 158 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

In actions to recover damages for personal injuries and for medical expenses and loss of services, the appeals are from (1) an order dated July 7, 1955 denying a motion for leave to renew the motion to set aside an order of preclusion made in the first action above entitled; (2) an order dated August 17, 1955 insofar as it denies a motion to discontinue said action against respondent, and (3) an order dated October 25,1955 granting a motion, under subdivision 3 of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint in the second action above entitled as against respondent. Order dated August 17,1955, insofar as appealed from, and orders dated July 7, 1055 and October 25, 1955 unanimously affirmed, with' one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ.

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

In actions to recover damages for personal injuries and for medical expenses and loss of services, the appeals are from (1) an order dated July 7, 1955 denying a motion for leave to renew the motion to set aside an order of preclusion made in the first action above entitled; (2) an order dated August 17, 1955 insofar as it denies a motion to discontinue said action against respondent, and (3) an order dated October 25,1955 granting a motion, under subdivision 3 of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint in the second action above entitled as against respondent. Order dated August 17,1955, insofar as appealed from, and orders dated July 7, 1055 and October 25, 1955 unanimously affirmed, with' one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 997, 158 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forbes-v-theodore-l-rubsamen-co-nyappdiv-1956.