Goldstein v. U. S. Smoked Fish Distributors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldstein v. U. S. Smoked Fish Distributors, Inc.

248 A.D. 875, 294 N.Y.S. 716, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7837

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D. 875 (Goldstein v. U. S. Smoked Fish Distributors, 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. U. S. Smoked Fish Distributors, Inc., 248 A.D. 875, 294 N.Y.S. 716, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for a stay pending the hearing and determination of the appeal granted upon condition that appellant perfect the appeal for Friday, October ninth (for which day the case is ordered on the calendar), and be ready for argument when reached, and upon the further condition that within two days from the entry of the order hereon the defendant-appellant file a corporate undertaking that upon the affirmance of the order it will pay to the plaintiff all moneys directed by the order, including the advance payments; otherwise denied. We are of opinion that the present undertaking is insufficient. (Mossein v. Empire State Surety Co., 97 App. Div. 230; 117 id. 820; Civ. Prac. Act, § 614.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Adel and Taylor, JJ.

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

Motion for a stay pending the hearing and determination of the appeal granted upon condition that appellant perfect the appeal for Friday, October ninth (for which day the case is ordered on the calendar), and be ready for argument when reached, and upon the further condition that within two days from the entry of the order hereon the defendant-appellant file a corporate undertaking that upon the affirmance of the order it will pay to the plaintiff all moneys directed by the order, including the advance payments; otherwise denied. We are of opinion that the present undertaking is insufficient. (Mossein v. Empire State Surety Co., 97 App. Div. 230; 117 id. 820; Civ. Prac. Act, § 614.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Adel and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D. 875, 294 N.Y.S. 716, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-u-s-smoked-fish-distributors-inc-nyappdiv-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack