Hoffman v. Hoffman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoffman v. Hoffman

266 A.D. 724, 40 N.Y.S.2d 871

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 22, 1943·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant failed to demand judgment for the return of the chattels in accordance with sections 1119 and 1124 of the Civil Practice Act. Under these circumstances the court could do no more than direct judgment dismissing the complaint with statutory costs to the defendant. (Levy v. Hohweisner, 101 App. Div. 82.)

The judgment and order should be modified accordingly, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Present—Martin, P. J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Judgment and order unanimously modified in accordance with opinion, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Settle order on notice.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant failed to demand judgment for the return of the chattels in accordance with sections 1119 and 1124 of the Civil Practice Act. Under these circumstances the court could do no more than direct judgment dismissing the complaint with statutory costs to the defendant. (Levy v. Hohweisner, 101 App. Div. 82.)

The judgment and order should be modified accordingly, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Present—Martin, P. J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Judgment and order unanimously modified in accordance with opinion, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Settle order on notice.

Hoffman v. Hoffman, 266 A.D. 724, 40 N.Y.S.2d 871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

266 A.D. 724 (Hoffman v. Hoffman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related