Goldstein v. Reiss & Fishman, Inc.
275 A.D.2d 652
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 14, 1949·Published
Opinions
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
Goldstein v. Reiss & Fishman, Inc., 275 A.D.2d 652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).
275 A.D.2d 652 (Goldstein v. Reiss & Fishman, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hoffman v. Hoffman
266 A.D. 724 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1943)
Beck v. Schneider
84 Misc. 23 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1914)