Harry R. Defler Corp. v. Kleeman

221 N.E.2d 914, 18 N.Y.2d 797, 275 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1064
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Harry R. Defler Corp. v. Kleeman. Read the opinion of the Court — 19 N.Y.2d 694
New York Court of Appeals·Decided October 20, 1966·Published

Opinion

Motion by defendants-appellants Kleeman denied. The two appeals to the Court of Appeals have, been taken in pursuance of CPLR 5601 (d) from a final judgment at Special Term and are limited to the review of a prior order of the Appellate Division directing entry of an interlocutory judgment. The additional appeal by appellants Kleeman to the Appellate Division is to review the proceedings at Special Term subsequent to the entry of the interlocutory judgment. The hearing of the appeal to the Court of Appeals by appellants Schneider and Carchem Products Corp. should not be deferred because appellants Kleeman seek to pursue other appellate remedies.

[799]*799Motion by plaintiff-respondent denied on condition appellants Kleeman be ready to argue or submit tbeir appeal to the Court of Appeals at the time the appeal of appellants Schneider and Carchem Products Corp. is reached here for argument. In view of the appellate remedies separately pursued by appellants Schneider and Carchem Products Corp. in the Court of Appeals, appellants Kleeman should not be required to discontinue their appeal to the Appellate Division.

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

Harry R. Defler Corp. v. Kleeman, 221 N.E.2d 914, 18 N.Y.2d 797, 275 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1064 (N.Y. 1966).

221 N.E.2d 914 (Harry R. Defler Corp. v. Kleeman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.