Haggerty v. Ruane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haggerty v. Ruane

233 A.D. 683

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

DecidedApril 15, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 233 A.D. 683 (Haggerty v. Ruane) 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

Haggerty v. Ruane, 233 A.D. 683 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying motion for a preference affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Order denying examination before trial affirmed without prejudice to a renewal upon a notice specifying that the defendant be examined as to any representations or promises made in connection with the contract of sale of the property; that the indebtedness of defendant or the said copartnership was canceled by plaintiff and so regarded by defendant at the time of the transaction referred to; that no deed has been delivered to plaintiff and the reasons therefor; the solvency of the defendant’s firm during February, 1927, and for several months thereafter; and the improvements made to the property by the plaintiff to the knowledge or with the consent of the defendant. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Scudder and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying motion for a preference affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Order denying examination before trial affirmed without prejudice to a renewal upon a notice specifying that the defendant be examined as to any representations or promises made in connection with the contract of sale of the property; that the indebtedness of defendant or the said copartnership was canceled by plaintiff and so regarded by defendant at the time of the transaction referred to; that no deed has been delivered to plaintiff and the reasons therefor; the solvency of the defendant’s firm during February, 1927, and for several months thereafter; and the improvements made to the property by the plaintiff to the knowledge or with the consent of the defendant. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Scudder and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D. 683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haggerty-v-ruane-nyappdiv-1931.