Griessman v. Fisher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Griessman v. Fisher

225 A.D. 874

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D. 874 (Griessman v. Fisher) 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

Griessman v. Fisher, 225 A.D. 874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Order dismissing eomplaiht for insufficiency affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. While we disapprove of the conduct of defendant in entertaining jurisdiction of this case, we do not think he was legally disqualified. (People ex rel. Cooper v. Sheriff of the County of Washington, 208 App. Div. 823.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper and Carswell, JJ., concur; Hagarty, J., dissents upon the ground that the complaining witness in a criminal prosecution is a party to the controversy within the meaning of section 15 of the Judiciary Law.

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

Order dismissing eomplaiht for insufficiency affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. While we disapprove of the conduct of defendant in entertaining jurisdiction of this case, we do not think he was legally disqualified. (People ex rel. Cooper v. Sheriff of the County of Washington, 208 App. Div. 823.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper and Carswell, JJ., concur; Hagarty, J., dissents upon the ground that the complaining witness in a criminal prosecution is a party to the controversy within the meaning of section 15 of the Judiciary Law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D. 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griessman-v-fisher-nyappdiv-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack