Ginsburg v. F. W. Woolworth Co.
176 A.D. 881
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Ginsburg v. F. W. Woolworth Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 179 A.D. 364 →
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 15, 1916·Published
Opinion
Our settled practice on appeals from orders has been not to review the discretion exercised by the court at Special Term in granting or in withholding an injunction pendente lite. (Duryea v. Auerbach, 164 App. Div. 44; Smith v. Smith, 170 id. 950.) No exceptional case to call for a departure from this rule has been made out. Order affirmed, but without passing on the merits, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Thomas, Stapleton, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ginsburg v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 176 A.D. 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).
176 A.D. 881 (Ginsburg v. F. W. Woolworth Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Duryea v. Auerbach
164 A.D. 44 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1914)