Fusik v. Scholl
This text of 251 A.D. 747 (Fusik v. Scholl) 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.
Opinion
Order entered July 18, 1935, denying plaintiff’s motion to punish defendant for contempt for. alleged failure to comply with a judgment directing the defendant to do certain things with respect to a certain mechanical refrigeration apparatus, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. The finding that the judgment was complied with concludes the plaintiff, by reason of its being based on a personal inspection by the court. (Braisted v. Brooklyn & R. B. R. R. Co., 46 App. Div. 204; Haber v. Paramount Ice Corporation, 239 id. 324, 326; affd., 264 N. Y. 98; Gucker v. Lewis, 249 App. Div. 858.) Order entered November 8, 1935, denying plaintiff’s motion to renew or reargue the prior motion to punish defendant for contempt of court, affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
251 A.D. 747, 296 N.Y.S. 68, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fusik-v-scholl-nyappdiv-1937.