Goldberg v. New Amsterdam Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldberg v. New Amsterdam Co.

16 A.D.2d 673, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10285

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

DecidedApril 16, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 673 (Goldberg v. New Amsterdam 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

Goldberg v. New Amsterdam Co., 16 A.D.2d 673, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a lawyer upon a policy of liability insurance for lawyers issued to him by the defendant, to recover: (a) the amount of a judgment rendered against him in a prior action arising out of his performance of legal services, and (b) the amount expended by him to defend said action, the defendant, by permission of this court, appeals from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, dated June 29; 1961, which affirmed an order of the District Court of the County of Nassau, First District, made and entered February 16, 1961, denying its (defendant’s) motion for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order of the Appellate Term affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a lawyer upon a policy of liability insurance for lawyers issued to him by the defendant, to recover: (a) the amount of a judgment rendered against him in a prior action arising out of his performance of legal services, and (b) the amount expended by him to defend said action, the defendant, by permission of this court, appeals from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, dated June 29; 1961, which affirmed an order of the District Court of the County of Nassau, First District, made and entered February 16, 1961, denying its (defendant’s) motion for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order of the Appellate Term affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 673, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberg-v-new-amsterdam-co-nyappdiv-1962.