Goldstein v. Reiss & Fishman, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldstein v. Reiss & Fishman, Inc.

275 A.D.2d 652

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 652 (Goldstein v. Reiss & Fishman, Inc.) 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

Goldstein v. Reiss & Fishman, Inc., 275 A.D.2d 652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiara.

We think that the decision of the trial court was proper and no material error committed in the receipt of evidence. The form of the judgment appears to be substantially correct in view of the failure to demand the return of the chattel in accordance with the provisions of sections 1119 and 1124 of the Civil Practice Act (see Hoffman v. Hoffman, 266 App. Div. 724; Beck v. Schneider, 84 Misc. 23).

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs to the respondents.

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

Per Curiara.

We think that the decision of the trial court was proper and no material error committed in the receipt of evidence. The form of the judgment appears to be substantially correct in view of the failure to demand the return of the chattel in accordance with the provisions of sections 1119 and 1124 of the Civil Practice Act (see Hoffman v. Hoffman, 266 App. Div. 724; Beck v. Schneider, 84 Misc. 23).

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs to the respondents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-reiss-fishman-inc-nyappdiv-1949.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack