Georchelle Enterprises, Inc. v. Freedom National Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Georchelle Enterprises, Inc. v. Freedom National Bank

53 A.D.2d 523, 385 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13121

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

DecidedJune 8, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 523 (Georchelle Enterprises, Inc. v. Freedom National Bank) 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

Georchelle Enterprises, Inc. v. Freedom National Bank, 53 A.D.2d 523, 385 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13121 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 30, 1973, granting defendant Freedom National Bank of New York’s motion to dismiss the causes of action against it to the extent of dismissing the second cause and directing service of an amended complaint making more definite and certain the third cause, and denying plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements to respondent. The appeal from [524]*524that part of Trial Term’s order directing a more definite statement as to the third cause of action of the complaint is dismissed for failure to obtain permission to appeal (CPLR 5701, subd [b], par 2; subd [c]X With respect to the dismissal of the second cause of action of the complaint and the denial of plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment, the order is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the court below. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 30, 1973, granting defendant Freedom National Bank of New York’s motion to dismiss the causes of action against it to the extent of dismissing the second cause and directing service of an amended complaint making more definite and certain the third cause, and denying plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements to respondent. The appeal from [524]*524that part of Trial Term’s order directing a more definite statement as to the third cause of action of the complaint is dismissed for failure to obtain permission to appeal (CPLR 5701, subd [b], par 2; subd [c]X With respect to the dismissal of the second cause of action of the complaint and the denial of plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment, the order is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the court below. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 523, 385 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georchelle-enterprises-inc-v-freedom-national-bank-nyappdiv-1976.