Harris v. Enfeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harris v. Enfeld

26 A.D.2d 799, 274 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3430

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 799 (Harris v. Enfeld) 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

Harris v. Enfeld, 26 A.D.2d 799, 274 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3430 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on March 21, 1966, granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, denying defendant’s cross motion therefor and dismissing defendant’s counterclaim, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of deleting the directions for payment of interest from February 3, 1965 and the return of dividends collected by defendant subsequent to February 3, 1965, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The inclusion of interest from the date of termination of employment and the direction for the return of the dividends declared prior to the expiration of the option was error. Defendant had title to the bonds and stock constituting the units until November 3, 1965, when the option expired. Settle order on notice. Concur — McNally, J. P., Stevens, Capozzoli and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on March 21, 1966, granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, denying defendant’s cross motion therefor and dismissing defendant’s counterclaim, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of deleting the directions for payment of interest from February 3, 1965 and the return of dividends collected by defendant subsequent to February 3, 1965, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The inclusion of interest from the date of termination of employment and the direction for the return of the dividends declared prior to the expiration of the option was error. Defendant had title to the bonds and stock constituting the units until November 3, 1965, when the option expired. Settle order on notice. Concur — McNally, J. P., Stevens, Capozzoli and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 799, 274 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-enfeld-nyappdiv-1966.