Harvey v. Cohen
This text of 259 A.D. 751 (Harvey v. Cohen) 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.
Opinion
Order affirmed, without costs. Upon the facts adduced the Special Term found that the subscribing witness did not participate in the forgery of the signature on line eight, sheet five. Therefore, the only invalid signature is the one forged and the entire petition is not tainted. The alterations in the affidavit of the subscribing witness on sheets three, four and five were made with his knowledge, before he signed the affidavit and before he took the oath. It was valid. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider any further questions. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
259 A.D. 751, 18 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvey-v-cohen-nyappdiv-1940.