Hicks v. Bush

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hicks v. Bush

11 A.D.2d 736, 205 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8998

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

DecidedJune 27, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.2d 736 (Hicks v. Bush) 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

Hicks v. Bush, 11 A.D.2d 736, 205 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8998 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for specific performance of a contract of merger of a partnership and various corporations, and for incidental relief, the parties cross-appeal: (1) plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered June 10, 1959, after a trial by the court without a jury, as dismissed the complaint; and (2) defendants other than Michael A. Congero and Brush-Hicks Enterprises, Inc., appeal from so much of said judgment as granted plaintiff’s motion to strike out the second and third affirmative defenses in their amended answer and as denied their motion to further amend their answer so as to plead a proposed fourth affirmative defense. Judgment insofar as appealed from affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for specific performance of a contract of merger of a partnership and various corporations, and for incidental relief, the parties cross-appeal: (1) plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered June 10, 1959, after a trial by the court without a jury, as dismissed the complaint; and (2) defendants other than Michael A. Congero and Brush-Hicks Enterprises, Inc., appeal from so much of said judgment as granted plaintiff’s motion to strike out the second and third affirmative defenses in their amended answer and as denied their motion to further amend their answer so as to plead a proposed fourth affirmative defense. Judgment insofar as appealed from affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.2d 736, 205 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-bush-nyappdiv-1960.